Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-LAW.filter - rwp claimed:


rwp@1Corinthians:1:13 @{Is Christ divided?} (\memeristai ho Christos;\). Perfect passive indicative, Does Christ stand divided? It is not certain, though probable, that this is interrogative like the following clauses. Hofmann calls the assertory form a "rhetorical impossibility." The absence of \mˆ\ here merely allows an affirmative answer which is true. The fourth or Christ party claimed to possess Christ in a sense not true of the others. Perhaps the leaders of this Christ party with their arrogant assumptions of superiority are the false apostles, ministers of Satan posing as angels of light (2Corinthians:11:12-15|). {Was Paul crucified for you?} (\Mˆ Paulos estaur“thˆ huper hum“n;\). An indignant "No" is demanded by \mˆ\. Paul shows his tact by employing himself as the illustration, rather than Apollos or Cephas. Probably \huper\, over, in behalf of, rather than \peri\ (concerning, around) is genuine, though either makes good sense here. In the _Koin‚_ \huper\ encroaches on \peri\ as in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:1|. {Were ye baptized into the name of Paul?} (\eis to onoma Paulou ebaptisthˆte;\). It is unnecessary to say {into} for \eis\ rather than {in} since \eis\ is the same preposition originally as \en\ and both are used with \baptiz“\ as in strkjv@Acts:8:16; strkjv@10:48| with no difference in idea (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 592). Paul evidently knows the idea in strkjv@Matthew:28:19| and scouts the notion of being put on a par with Christ or the Trinity. He is no rival of Christ. This use of \onoma\ for the person is not only in the LXX, but the papyri, ostraca, and inscriptions give numerous examples of the name of the king or the god for the power and authority of the king or god (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, pp. 146ff., 196ff.; _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 121).

rwp@1Corinthians:1:22 @{Seeing that} (\epeidˆ\). Resumes from verse 21|. The structure is not clear, but probably verses 23,24| form a sort of conclusion or apodosis to verse 22| the protasis. The resumptive, almost inferential, use of \de\ like \alla\ in the apodosis is not unusual. {Ask for signs} (\sˆmeia aitousin\). The Jews often came to Jesus asking for signs (Matthew:12:38; strkjv@16:1; strkjv@John:6:30|). {Seek after wisdom} (\sophian zˆtousin\). "The Jews claimed to _possess_ the truth: the Greeks were seekers, _speculators_" (Vincent) as in strkjv@Acts:17:23|.

rwp@1Corinthians:2:10 @{But unto us God revealed them} (\hˆmin gar apekalupsen ho theos\). Songs:with \gar\ B 37 Sah Cop read instead of \de\ of Aleph A C D. "\De\ is superficially easier; \gar\ intrinsically better" (Findlay). Paul explains why this is no longer hidden, "for God revealed unto us" the wonders of grace pictured in verse 9|. We do not have to wait for heaven to see them. Hence we can utter those things hidden from the eye, the ear, the heart of man. This revelation (\apekalupsen\, first aorist active indicative) took place, at "the entry of the Gospel into the world," not "when we were admitted into the Church, when we were baptized" as Lightfoot interprets it. {Through the Spirit} (\dia tou pneumatos\). The Holy Spirit is the agent of this definite revelation of grace, a revelation with a definite beginning or advent (constative aorist), an unveiling by the Spirit where "human ability and research would not have sufficed" (Robertson and Plummer), "according to the revelation of the mystery" (Romans:16:25|), "the revelation given to Christians as an event that began a new epoch in the world's history" (Edwards). {Searcheth all things} (\panta eraunƒi\). This is the usual form from A.D. 1 on rather than the old \ereuna“\. The word occurs (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_) for a professional searcher's report and \eraunˆtai\, searchers for customs officials. "The Spirit is the organ of understanding between man and God" (Findlay). Songs:in strkjv@Romans:8:27| we have this very verb \erauna“\ again of God's searching our hearts. The Holy Spirit not merely investigates us, but he searches "even the deep things of God" (\kai ta bathˆ tou theou\). _Profunda Dei_ (Vulgate). Cf. "the deep things of Satan" (Revelation:2:24|) and Paul's language in strkjv@Romans:11:33| "Oh the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God." Paul's point is simply that the Holy Spirit fully comprehends the depth of God's nature and his plans of grace and so is fully competent to make the revelation here claimed.

rwp@1Corinthians:2:11 @{Knoweth} (\oiden, egn“ken\). Second perfect of root \id-\, to see and so know, first perfect of \gin“sk“\, to know by personal experience, has come to know and still knows. See First John for a clear distinction in the use of \oida\ and \gin“sk“\. {The spirit of man that is in him} (\to pneuma tou anthr“pou to en aut“i\). The self-consciousness of man that resides in the man or woman (generic term for mankind, \anthr“pos\). {The Spirit of God} (\to pneuma tou theou\). Note the absence of \to en aut“i\. It is not the mere self-consciousness of God, but the personal Holy Spirit in his relation to God the Father. Paul's analogy between the spirit of man and the Spirit of God does not hold clear through and he guards it at this vital point as he does elsewhere as in strkjv@Romans:8:26| and in the full Trinitarian benediction in strkjv@2Corinthians:13:13|. \Pneuma\ in itself merely means breath or wind as in strkjv@John:3:8|. To know accurately Paul's use of the word in every instance calls for an adequate knowledge of his theology, and psychology. But the point here is plain. God's Holy Spirit is amply qualified to make the revelation claimed here in verses 6-10|.

rwp@1Corinthians:2:13 @{Which things also we speak} (\ha kai laloumen\). This onomatopoetic verb \lale“\ (from \la-la\), to utter sounds. In the papyri the word calls more attention to the form of utterance while \leg“\ refers more to the substance. But \lale“\ in the N.T. as here is used of the highest and holiest speech. Undoubtedly Paul employs the word purposely for the utterance of the revelation which he has understood. That is to say, there is revelation (verse 10|), illumination (verse 12|), and inspiration (verse 13|). Paul claims therefore the help of the Holy Spirit for the reception of the revelation, for the understanding of it, for the expression of it. Paul claimed this authority for his preaching (1Thessalonians:4:2|) and for his epistles (2Thessalonians:3:14|). {Not in words which man's wisdom teacheth} (\ouk en didaktois anthr“pinˆs sophias logois\). Literally, "not in words taught by human wisdom." The verbal adjective \didaktois\ (from \didask“\, to teach) is here passive in idea and is followed by the ablative case of origin or source as in strkjv@John:6:45|, \esontai pantes didaktoi theou\ (from strkjv@Isaiah:54:13|), "They shall all be taught by God." The ablative in Greek, as is well known, has the same form as the genitive, though quite different in idea (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 516). Songs:then Paul claims the help of the Holy Spirit in the utterance (\laloumen\) of the words, "which the Spirit teacheth (\en didaktois pneumatos\), "in words taught by the Spirit" (ablative \pneumatos\ as above). Clearly Paul means that the help of the Holy Spirit in the utterance of the revelation extends to the words. No theory of inspiration is here stated, but it is not _mere_ human wisdom. Paul's own Epistles bear eloquent witness to the lofty claim here made. They remain today after nearly nineteen centuries throbbing with the power of the Spirit of God, dynamic with life for the problems of today as when Paul wrote them for the needs of the believers in his time, the greatest epistles of all time, surcharged with the energy of God. {Comparing spiritual things with spiritual} (\pneumatikois pneumatika sunkrinontes\). Each of these words is in dispute. The verb \sunkrin“\, originally meant to combine, to join together fitly. In the LXX it means to interpret dreams (Genesis:40:8,22; strkjv@41:12|) possibly by comparison. In the later Greek it may mean to compare as in strkjv@2Corinthians:10:12|. In the papyri Moulton and Milligan (_Vocabulary_) give it only for "decide," probably after comparing. But "comparing," in spite of the translations, does not suit well here. Songs:it is best to follow the original meaning to combine as do Lightfoot and Ellicott. But what gender is \pneumatikois\? Is it masculine or neuter like \pneumatika\? If masculine, the idea would be "interpreting (like LXX) spiritual truths to spiritual persons" or "matching spiritual truths with spiritual persons." This is a possible rendering and makes good sense in harmony with verse 14|. If \pneumatikois\ be taken as neuter plural (associative instrumental case after \sun\ in \sunkrinontes\), the idea most naturally would be, "combining spiritual ideas (\pneumatika\) with spiritual words" (\pneumatikois\). This again makes good sense in harmony with the first part of verse 13|. On the whole this is the most natural way to take it, though various other possibilities exist.

rwp@1Corinthians:3:18 @{Let no man deceive himself} (\Mˆdeis heauton exapat“\). A warning that implied that some of them were guilty of doing it (\mˆ\ and the present imperative). Excited partisans can easily excite themselves to a pious phrenzy, hypnotize themselves with their own supposed devotion to truth. {Thinketh that he is wise} (\dokei sophos einai\). Condition of first class and assumed to be true. Predicate nominative \sophos\ with the infinitive to agree with subject of \dokei\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1038). Paul claimed to be "wise" himself in verse 10| and he desires that the claimant to wisdom may become wise (\hina genˆtai sophos\, purpose clause with \hina\ and subjunctive) by becoming a fool (\m“ros genesth“\, second aorist middle imperative of \ginomai\) as this age looks at him. This false wisdom of the world (1:18-20,23; strkjv@2:14|), this self-conceit, has led to strife and wrangling. Cut it out.

rwp@1Corinthians:4:1 @{Ministers of Christ} (\hupˆretas Christou\). Paul and all ministers (\diakonous\) of the New Covenant (1Corinthians:3:5|) are under-rowers, subordinate rowers of Christ, only here in Paul's Epistles, though in the Gospels (Luke:4:20| the attendant in the synagogue) and the Acts (Acts:13:5|) of John Mark. The {so} (\hout“s\) gathers up the preceding argument (3:5-23|) and applies it directly by the {as} (\h“s\) that follows. {Stewards of the mysteries of God} (\oikonomous mustˆri“n theou\). The steward or house manager (\oikos\, house, \nem“\, to manage, old word) was a slave (\doulos\) under his lord (\kurios\, strkjv@Luke:12:42|), but a master (Luke:16:1|) over the other slaves in the house (menservants \paidas\, maidservants \paidiskas\ strkjv@Luke:12:45|), an overseer (\epitropos\) over the rest (Matthew:20:8|). Hence the under-rower (\hupˆretˆs\) of Christ has a position of great dignity as steward (\oikonomos\) of the mysteries of God. Jesus had expressly explained that the mysteries of the kingdom were open to the disciples (Matthew:13:11|). They were entrusted with the knowledge of some of God's secrets though the disciples were not such apt pupils as they claimed to be (Matthew:13:51; strkjv@16:8-12|). As stewards Paul and other ministers are entrusted with the mysteries (see on ¯1Corinthians:2:7| for this word) of God and are expected to teach them. "The church is the \oikos\ (1Timothy:3:15|), God the \oikodespotˆs\ (Matthew:13:52|), the members the \oikeioi\ (Galatians:6:10; strkjv@Ephesians:2:19|)" (Lightfoot). Paul had a vivid sense of the dignity of this stewardship (\oikonomia\) of God given to him (Colossians:1:25; strkjv@Ephesians:1:10|). The ministry is more than a mere profession or trade. It is a calling from God for stewardship.

rwp@1Corinthians:10:20 @{But I say that} (\all' hoti\). The verb \phˆmi\ (I say) must be repeated from verse 19| before \hoti\. {To demons, and not to God} (\daimoniois kai ou the“i\). Referring to LXX text of strkjv@Deuteronomy:32:17|. It is probable that by \ou the“i\ Paul means "to a no-god" as also in strkjv@Deuteronomy:32:21| \ep' ouk ethnei\ (by a no-people). This is Paul's reply to the heathen who claimed that they worshipped the gods represented by the images and not the mere wood or stone or metal idols. The word \daimonia\ is an adjective \daimonios\ from \daim“n\, an inferior deity, and with same idea originally, once in this sense in N.T. (Acts:17:18|). Elsewhere in N.T. it has the notion of evil spirits as here, those spiritual forces of wickedness (Ephesians:6:12|) that are under the control of Satan. The word \daimonia\, so common in the Gospels, occurs in Paul's writings only here and strkjv@1Timothy:4:1|. Demonology is a deep and dark subject here pictured by Paul as the explanation of heathenism which is a departure from God (Romans:1:19-23|) and a substitute for the worship of God. It is a terrible indictment which is justified by the licentious worship associated with paganism then and now.

rwp@1Corinthians:11:6 @{Let her also be shorn} (\kai keirasth“\). Aorist middle imperative of \keir“\, to shear (as sheep). Let her cut her hair close. A single act by the woman. {If it is a shame} (\ei de aischron\). Condition of first class assumed to be true. \Aischron\ is old adjective from \aischos\, bareness, disgrace. Clearly Paul uses such strong language because of the effect on a woman's reputation in Corinth by such conduct that proclaimed her a lewd woman. Social custom varied in the world then as now, but there was no alternative in Corinth. {To be shorn or shaven} (\to keirasthai kai xurasthai\). Articular infinitives subject of copula \estin\ understood, \keirasthai\ first aorist middle, \xurasthai\ present middle. Note change in tense. {Let her be veiled} (\katakaluptesth“\). Present middle imperative of old compound \kata-kalupt“\, here alone in N.T. Let her cover up herself with the veil (down, \kata\, the Greek says, the veil hanging down from the head).

rwp@Info_1John @ GNOSTICISM The Epistle is not a polemic primarily, but a letter for the edification of the readers in the truth and the life in Christ. And yet the errors of the Gnostics are constantly before John's mind. The leaders had gone out from among the true Christians, but there was an atmosphere of sympathy that constituted a subtle danger. There are only two passages (1John:2:18f.; strkjv@4:1-6|) in which the false teachers are specifically denounced, but "this unethical intellectualism" (Robert Law) with its dash of Greek culture and Oriental mysticism and licentiousness gave a curious attraction for many who did not know how to think clearly. John, like Paul in Colossians, Ephesians, and the Pastoral Epistles, foresaw this dire peril to Christianity. In the second century it gave pure Christianity a gigantic struggle. "The great Gnostics were the first Christian philosophers" (Robert Law, _The Tests of Life_, p. 27) and threatened to undermine the Gospel message by "deifying the devil" (ib., p. 31) along with dethroning Christ. There were two kinds of Gnostics, both agreeing in the essential evil of matter. Both had trouble with the Person of Christ. The Docetic Gnostics denied the actual humanity of Christ, the Cerinthian Gnostics distinguished between the man Jesus and the \aeon\ Christ that came on him at his baptism and left him on the Cross. Some practised asceticism, some licentiousness. John opposes both classes in his Epistles. They claimed superior knowledge (\gn“sis\) and so were called Gnostics (\Gn“stikoi\). Nine times John gives tests for knowing the truth and uses the verb \gin“sk“\ (know) each time (1John:2:3,5; strkjv@3:16,19,24; strkjv@4:2,6,13; strkjv@5:2|). Some of the leaders he calls antichrists. There are stories about John's dread of Cerinthus and his unwillingness to be seen in the same public bath with him. The Apostle of love, as he is, is a real son of thunder when Gnosticism shows its head. Westcott thinks that the Fourth Gospel was written to prove the deity of Christ, assuming his humanity, while I John was written to prove the humanity of Christ, assuming his deity. Certainly both ideas appear in both books.

rwp@Info_1John @ BIBLIOGRAPHY Alexander, _Epistles of John_ (Speaker's Comm., 1889). Barrett, _Devotional Comm. on John_ (1910). Baumgartner, _Die Schriften des N.T_. (IV. 3, 1918). Belser, _Komm_. (1906). Bennett, _New-Century Bible_. Brooke, _Int. Crit. Comm_. (Johannine Epistles, 1912). Cox, _Private Letters of St. Paul and St. John_ (1887). Ebrard, _Die Briefe Johannis_ (1859). Ewald, _Die Johanneischen Schriften_ (1861). Findlay, _Fellowship in the Life Eternal_ (1909) Gibbon, _Eternal Life_ (1890). Gore, _Epistles of John_ (1921). Green, _Ephesian Canonical Writings_ (1910). Haring, _Die Johannesbriefe_ (1927). Haupt, _I John_ (1869). Hilgenfeld, _Das Evangelium und die Briefe Johannis nach ihrem Lehrbegriff dargestellt_ (1849). Holtzmann-Bauer, _Hand-Comm. sum N.T_. (1908). Holtzmann, _Das Problem des I Johannesbr. in seinem Ver- haltniss zum Evang_. (Jahrbuch fur Prot. Theologie, 1881, 1882). Huther, _Crit. and Exeget. to the General Eps. of James and John_ (1882). Karl, _Johanneische Studien_ (der I Johannes Brief, 1898). Law, _The Tests of Life_ (1909). Lias, _Epistles of John_ (1887). Loisy, _Les epitres dites de Jean_ (1921) in le quatrieme evan- gile. Lucke, _Comm. on Epistles of John_ (1837). Luthardt, _Strack-Zoeckler Komm_. (1895). Maurice, _The Epistles of St. John_ (1857). Plummer, _Cambridge Greek Test_ (1886). Ramsay, A., _Westminster N.T_. (1910). Ritter, _Die Gemeinschaft der Heiligen_ (1929). Robertson, J. A., _The Johannine Epistles_ (1920). Rothe, _Der erste Brief Johannis_ (1879). Sawtelle, _American Comm_. (1890). Smith, David, _The Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1910). Watson, _Epistles of John_ (1910). Weiss, B., _Die drei Briefe des Apostels Johannis_ (Meyer Komm. 1900). Wendt, _Die Johannesbriefe und das Johanneische Christen- tum_ (1925). Westcott, _The Epistles of St. John_. 3rd ed. (1892). Windisch, _Die Katholischer Briefe_ (Handbuch zum N.T., 2 Aufl., 1930). Wrede, _In Die Heiligen Schriften des N.T_. (2 Aufl., 1924). Wurm, _Die Irrlehrer im I Johannes Brief_ (1903). strkjv@1John:1:1 @{That which} (\ho\). Strictly speaking, the neuter relative here is not personal, but the message "concerning the Word of life" (\peri tou logou tˆs z“ˆs\), a phrase that reminds one at once of the Word (\Logos\) in strkjv@John:1:1,14; strkjv@Revelation:19:14| (an incidental argument for identity of authorship for all these books). For discussion of the \Logos\ see on ¯John:1:1-18|. Here the \Logos\ is described by \tˆs z“ˆs\ (of life), while in strkjv@John:1:4| he is called \hˆ z“ˆ\ (the Life) as here in verse 2| and as Jesus calls himself (John:11:25; strkjv@14:6|), an advance on the phrase here, and in strkjv@Revelation:19:14| he is termed \ho logos tou theou\ (the Word of God), though in strkjv@John:1:1| the \Logos\ is flatly named \ho theos\ (God). John does use \ho\ in a collective personal sense in strkjv@John:6:37,39|. See also \pan ho\ in strkjv@1John:5:4|. {From the beginning} (\ap' archˆs\). Anarthrous as in strkjv@John:1:1; strkjv@6:64; strkjv@16:4|. See same phrase in strkjv@2:7|. The reference goes beyond the Christian dispensation, beyond the Incarnation, to the eternal purpose of God in Christ (John:3:16|), "coeval in some sense with creation" (Westcott). {That which we have heard} (\ho akˆkoamen\). Note fourfold repetition of \ho\ (that which) without connectives (asyndeton). The perfect tense (active indicative of \akou“\) stresses John's equipment to speak on this subject so slowly revealed. It is the literary plural unless John associates the elders of Ephesus with himself (Lightfoot) the men who certified the authenticity of the Gospel (John:21:24|). {That which we have seen} (\ho he“rakamen\). Perfect active, again, of \hora“\, with the same emphasis on the possession of knowledge by John. {With our eyes} (\tois ophthalmois hˆm“n\). Instrumental case and showing it was not imagination on John's part, not an optical illusion as the Docetists claimed, for Jesus had an actual human body. He could be heard and seen. {That which we beheld} (\ho etheasametha\). Repetition with the aorist middle indicative of \theaomai\ (the very form in strkjv@John:1:14|), "a spectacle which broke on our astonished vision" (D. Smith). {Handled} (\epsˆlaphˆsan\). First aorist active indicative of \psˆlapha“\, old and graphic verb (from \psa“\, to touch), the very verb used by Jesus to prove that he was not a mere spirit (Luke:24:39|). Three senses are here appealed to (hearing, sight, touch) as combining to show the reality of Christ's humanity against the Docetic Gnostics and the qualification of John by experience to speak. But he is also "the Word of life" and so God Incarnate.

rwp@1John:1:5 @{And} (\kai\). Mutual fellowship depends on mutual knowledge (Westcott). {Message} (\aggelia\). Old word (from \aggelos\, messenger), in N.T. only here and strkjv@3:11|, and note \ap' autou\ (from God like \apaggell“\ in verse 3|) and \anaggellomen\, to announce, to disclose, here as in strkjv@John:4:25|. {God is light} (\ho theos ph“s estin\). Precisely so the \Logos\ is light (John:1:4-9|) and what Jesus claimed to be (John:8:12|). John repeats it in negative form as he often does (John:1:3|).

rwp@1John:3:5 @{He} (\ekeinos\). As in verse 3; strkjv@John:1:18|. {Was manifested} (\ephaner“thˆ\). Same form as in verse 2|, but here of the Incarnation as in strkjv@John:21:1|, not of the second coming (1John:2:28|). {To take away sins} (\hina tas hamartias arˆi\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and first aorist active subjunctive of \air“\ as in strkjv@John:1:29|. In strkjv@Isaiah:53:11| we have \anapher“\ for bearing sins, but \air“\ properly means to lift up and carry away (John:2:16|). Songs:in strkjv@Hebrews:10:4| we find \aphaire“\ and strkjv@Hebrews:10:11| \periaire“\, to take away sins completely (the complete expiation wrought by Christ on Calvary). The plural \hamartias\ here, as in strkjv@Colossians:1:14|, not singular (collective sense) \hamartian\ as in strkjv@John:1:29|. {And in him is no sin} (\kai hamartia en aut“i ouk estin\). "And sin (the sinful principle) in him is not." As Jesus had claimed about himself (John:7:18; strkjv@8:46|) and as is repeatedly stated in the N.T. (2Corinthians:5:21; strkjv@Hebrews:4:15; strkjv@7:26; strkjv@9:13|).

rwp@1Peter:5:1 @{Who am a fellow-elder} (\ho sunpresbuteros\). Earliest use of this compound in an inscription of B.C. 120 for fellow-elders (alderman) in a town, here only in N.T., in eccles. writers. For the word \presbuteros\ in the technical sense of officers in a Christian church (like elder in the local synagogues of the Jews) see strkjv@Acts:11:30; strkjv@20:17|. It is noteworthy that here Peter the Apostle (1:1|) calls himself an elder along with (\sun\) the other "elders." {A witness} (\martus\). This is what Jesus had said they must be (Acts:1:8|) and what Peter claimed to be (Acts:3:15; strkjv@10:39|). Songs:Paul was to be a \martus\ (Acts:22:15|). {Who am also a partaker} (\ho kai koin“nos\). "The partner also," "the partaker also." See strkjv@Luke:5:10; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:7; strkjv@2Peter:1:4|. See same idea in strkjv@Romans:8:17|. In strkjv@Galatians:3:23; strkjv@Romans:8:18| we have almost this about the glory about to be revealed to us where \mell“\ as here is used with the infinitive.

rwp@Info_1Thessalonians @ There are excellent commentaries on the Thessalonian Epistles. On the Greek text one may note those by Dibelius, _Handbuch zum N.T. Zweite Auflage_ (1925); Dobschutz, _Meyer-Kommentar_ (1909); Ellicott, _Crit. and Grammat. Comm._ (1884); Findlay, _Cambridge Gk. Test._ (1904); Frame, _Intern. Critical Comm._ (1912); Lightfoot, _Notes on Epistles of Paul_ (1895); Mayer, _Die Thessalonischerbriefe_ (1908); Milligan, _St. Paul's Epistles to the Thess._ (1908); Moffatt, _Expos. Gk. Test._ (1910); Plummer, _First Thess._ (1908), _Second Thess._ (1908); Wohlenberg, _Zahn-Komm. 2 aufl._ (1908). On the English text note those by Adeney, _New Century Bible_ (1907); Denney, _Expos. Bible_ (1892); Findlay, _Cambridge Bible_ (1891); Hutchinson, _Lectures on I & II Thess._ (1883). strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:1 @{Paul, and Silvanus, and Timothy} (\Paulos kai Silouanos kai Timotheos\). Nominative absolute as customary in letters. Paul associates with himself Silvanus (Silas of Acts, spelled \Silbanos\ in D and the papyri), a Jew and Roman citizen, and Timothy, son of Jewish mother and Greek father, one of Paul's converts at Lystra on the first tour. They had both been with Paul at Thessalonica, though Timothy is not mentioned by Luke in Acts in Macedonia till Beroea (Acts:17:14f.|). Timothy had joined Paul in Athens (1Thessalonians:3:1f.|), had been sent back to Thessalonica, and with Silas had rejoined Paul in Corinth (1Thessalonians:3:5; strkjv@Acts:18:5, strkjv@2Corinthians:1:19|). Silas is the elder and is mentioned first, but neither is in any sense the author of the Epistle any more than Sosthenes is co-author of I Corinthians or Timothy of II Corinthians, though Paul may sometimes have them in mind when he uses "we" in the Epistle. Paul does not here call himself "apostle" as in the later Epistles, perhaps because his position has not been so vigorously attacked as it was later. Ellicott sees in the absence of the word here a mark of the affectionate relations existing between Paul and the Thessalonians. {Unto the church of the Thessalonians} (\tˆi ekklˆsiƒi Thessalonike“n\). The dative case in address. Note absence of the article with \Thessalonike“n\ because a proper name and so definite without it. This is the common use of \ekklˆsia\ for a local body (church). The word originally meant "assembly" as in strkjv@Acts:19:39|, but it came to mean an organization for worship whether assembled or unassembled (cf. strkjv@Acts:8:3|). The only superscription in the oldest Greek manuscripts (Aleph B A) is \Pros Thessalonikeis A\ ({To the Thessalonians First}). But probably Paul wrote no superscription and certainly he would not write A to it before he had written II Thessalonians (B). His signature at the close was the proof of genuineness (2Thessalonians:3:17|) against all spurious claimants (2Thessalonians:2:2|). Unfortunately the brittle papyrus on which he wrote easily perished outside of the sand heaps and tombs of Egypt or the lava covered ruins of Herculaneum. What a treasure that autograph would be! {In God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ} (\en the“i patri kai kuri“i Jˆsou Christ“i\). This church is grounded in (\en\, with the locative case) and exists in the sphere and power of {God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ}. No article in the Greek, for both \the“i patri\ and \kuri“i Jˆsou Christ“i\ are treated as proper names. In the very beginning of this first Epistle of Paul we meet his Christology. He at once uses the full title, "Lord Jesus Christ," with all the theological content of each word. The name "Jesus" (Saviour, strkjv@Matthew:1:21|) he knew, as the "Jesus of history," the personal name of the Man of Galilee, whom he had once persecuted (Acts:9:5|), but whom he at once, after his conversion, proclaimed to be "the Messiah," (\ho Christos\, strkjv@Acts:9:22|). This position Paul never changed. In the great sermon at Antioch in Pisidia which Luke has preserved (Acts:13:23|) Paul proved that God fulfilled his promise to Israel by raising up "Jesus as Saviour" (\s“tˆra Iˆsoun\). Now Paul follows the Christian custom by adding \Christos\ (verbal from \chri“\, to anoint) as a proper name to Jesus (Jesus Christ) as later he will often say "Christ Jesus" (Colossians:1:1|). And he dares also to apply \kurios\ (Lord) to "Jesus Christ," the word appropriated by Claudius (_Dominus_, \Kurios\) and other emperors in the emperor-worship, and also common in the Septuagint for God as in strkjv@Psalms:32:1f.| (quoted by Paul in strkjv@Romans:4:8|). Paul uses \Kurios\ of God (1Corinthians:3:5|) or of Jesus Christ as here. In fact, he more frequently applies it to Christ when not quoting the Old Testament as in strkjv@Romans:4:8|. And here he places "the Lord Jesus Christ" in the same category and on the same plane with "God the father." There will be growth in Paul's Christology and he will never attain all the knowledge of Christ for which he longs (Phillipians:3:10-12|), but it is patent that here in his first Epistle there is no "reduced Christ" for Paul. He took Jesus as "Lord" when he surrendered to Jesus on the Damascus Road: "And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said to me" (Acts:22:10|). It is impossible to understand Paul without seeing clearly this first and final stand for the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul did not get this view of Jesus from current views of Mithra or of Isis or any other alien faith. The Risen Christ became at once for Paul the Lord of his life. {Grace to you and peace} (\charis humin kai eirˆnˆ\). These words, common in Paul's Epistles, bear "the stamp of Paul's experience" (Milligan). They are not commonplace salutations, but the old words "deepened and spiritualised" (Frame). The infinitive (\chairein\) so common in the papyri letters and seen in the New Testament also (Acts:15:23; strkjv@23:26; strkjv@James:1:1|) here gives place to \charis\, one of the great words of the New Testament (cf. strkjv@John:1:16f.|) and particularly of the Pauline Epistles. Perhaps no one word carries more meaning for Paul's messages than this word \charis\ (from \chair“\, rejoice) from which \charizomai\ comes. {Peace} (\eirˆnˆ\) is more than the Hebrew _shal“m_ so common in salutations. One recalls the "peace" that Christ leaves to us (John:14:27|) and the peace of God that passes all understanding (Phillipians:4:7|). This introduction is brief, but rich and gracious and pitches the letter at once on a high plane.

rwp@2Corinthians:4:4 @{The god of this world} (\ho theos tou ai“nos toutou\). "Age," more exactly, as in strkjv@1Corinthians:1:20|. Satan is "the god of this age," a phrase nowhere else in the N.T., but Jesus uses the same idea in strkjv@John:12:31; strkjv@14:30| and Paul in strkjv@Ephesians:2:2; strkjv@6:12| and John in strkjv@1John:5:19|. Satan claimed the rule over the world in the temptations with Jesus. {Blinded} (\etuphl“sen\). First aorist active of \tuphlo“\, old verb to blind (\tuphlos\, blind). They refused to believe (\apist“n\) and so Satan got the power to blind their thoughts. That happens with wilful disbelievers. {The light} (\ton ph“tismon\). The illumination, the enlightening. Late word from \photiz“\, to give light, in Plutarch and LXX. In N.T. only in strkjv@2Corinthians:4:4,6|. Accusative case of general reference here with the articular infinitive (\eis to mˆ augasai\ that should not dawn). That is, if \augasai\ is intransitive as is likely, though it is transitive in the old poets (from \augˆ\, radiance. Cf. German _Auge_=eye). If it is transitive, the idea would be "that they should not see clearly the illumination, etc."

rwp@2Corinthians:10:1 @{Now I Paul myself} (\Autos de eg“ Paulos\). Cf. strkjv@Galatians:5:2|. Paul now turns to the third part of the epistle in chapters 10-13| in which he vigorously defends himself against the accusations of the stubborn minority of Judaizers in Corinth. Great ministers of Christ through the ages have had to pass through fiery trials like these. Paul has shown the way for us all. He speaks of himself now plainly, but under compulsion, as is clear. It may be that at this point he took the pen from the amanuensis and wrote himself as in strkjv@Galatians:6:11|. {By the meekness and gentleness of Christ} (\dia tes prautˆtos kai epieikias tou Christou\). This appeal shows (Plummer) that Paul had spoken to the Corinthians about the character of Christ. Jesus claimed meekness for himself (Matthew:11:29|) and felicitated the meek (Matthew:5:5|) and he exemplified it abundantly (Luke:23:34|). See on ¯Matthew:5:15; strkjv@1Corinthians:4:21| for this great word that has worn thin with us. Plutarch combines \prautˆs\ with \epieikia\ as Paul does here. Matthew Arnold suggested "sweet reasonableness" for \epieikeia\ in Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch. It is in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:24:4| (\to epieikes\ in strkjv@Phillipians:4:5|). In Greek Ethics the equitable man was called \epieikˆs\, a man who does not press for the last farthing of his rights (Bernard). {Lowly among you} (\tapeinos en humin\). The bad use of \tapeinos\, the old use, but here alone in N.T. in that meaning. Socrates and Aristotle used it for littleness of soul. Probably Paul here is quoting one of the sneers of his traducers in Corinth about his humble conduct while with them (1Corinthians:2:23; strkjv@2Corinthians:7:6|) and his boldness (\ap“n tharr“\) when away (1Corinthians:7:16|). "It was easy to satirize and misrepresent a depression of spirits, a humility of demeanour, which were either the direct results of some bodily affliction, or which the consciousness of this affliction had rendered habitual" (Farrar). The words stung Paul to the quick.

rwp@2Corinthians:12:1 @{I must needs glory} (\kauchasthai dei\). This is the reading of B L Latin Syriac, but Aleph D Bohairic have \de\ while K M read \dˆ\. The first is probably correct. He must go on with the glorying already begun, foolish as it is, though it is not expedient (\ou sumpheron\). {Visions} (\optasias\). Late word from \optaz“\. See on ¯Luke:1:22; strkjv@Acts:26:19|. {Revelations of the Lord} (\apokalupseis Kuriou\). Unveilings (from \apokalupt“\ as in strkjv@Revelation:1:1|). See on ¯2Thessalonians:1:7; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:7; strkjv@14:26|. Paul had both repeated visions of Christ (Acts:9:3; strkjv@16:9; strkjv@18:9; strkjv@22:17; strkjv@27:23f.|) and revelations. He claimed to speak by direct revelation (1Corinthians:11:23; strkjv@15:3; strkjv@Galatians:1:12; strkjv@Ephesians:3:3|, etc.).

rwp@2John:1:9 @{Whosoever goeth onward} (\pƒs ho proag“n\). "Every one who goes ahead. \Proag“\ literally means to go on before (Mark:11:9|). That in itself is often the thing to do, but here the bad sense comes out by the parallel clause. {And abideth not in the teaching of Christ} (\kai mˆ men“n en tˆi didachˆi tou Christou\). Not the teaching about Christ, but that of Christ which is the standard of Christian teaching as the walk of Christ is the standard for the Christian's walk (1John:2:6|). See strkjv@John:7:16; strkjv@18:19|. These Gnostics claimed to be the progressives, the advanced thinkers, and were anxious to relegate Christ to the past in their onward march. This struggle goes on always among those who approach the study of Christ. Is he a "landmark" merely or is he our goal and pattern? Progress we all desire, but progress toward Christ, not away from him. Reactionary obscurantists wish no progress toward Christ, but desire to stop and camp where they are. "True progress includes the past" (Westcott). Jesus Christ is still ahead of us all calling us to come on to him.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ HE ACCEPTS PAUL'S EPISTLES AS SCRIPTURE This fact (2Peter:3:15f.|) has been used as conclusive proof by Baur and his school that Peter could not have written the Epistle after the stern rebuke from Paul at Antioch (Galatians:2:11f.|). But this argument ignores one element in Peter's impulsive nature and that is his coming back as he did with Jesus. Paul after that event in Antioch spoke kindly of Peter (1Corinthians:9:5|). Neither Peter nor Paul cherished a personal grudge where the Master's work was involved. It is also objected that Peter would not have put Paul's Epistles on the level with the O.T. and call them by implication "Scripture." But Paul claimed the help of the Holy Spirit in his writings and Peter knew the marks of the Holy Spirit's power. Besides, in calling Paul's Epistles Scripture he may not have meant to place them exactly on a par with the Old Testament.

rwp@2Peter:3:15 @{In his sight} (\aut“i\). Ethical dative. Referring to Christ. {Is salvation} (\s“tˆrian\). Predicate accusative after \hˆgeisthe\ in apposition with \makrothumian\ (long-suffering), an opportunity for repentance (cf. strkjv@1Peter:3:20|). The Lord here is Christ. {Our beloved brother Paul} (\ho agapˆtos adelphos Paulos\). Paul applies the verbal \agapˆtos\ (beloved) to Epaphras (Colossians:1:7|), Onesimus (Colossians:4:9; strkjv@Philemon:1:16|), to Tychicus (Colossians:4:7; strkjv@Ephesians:6:21|), and to four brethren in strkjv@Romans:16| (Epainetus strkjv@Romans:16:5|, Ampliatus strkjv@Romans:16:8|, Stachys strkjv@Romans:16:9|, Persis strkjv@Romans:16:12|). It is not surprising for Peter to use it of Paul in view of Gal strkjv@2:9f.|, in spite of strkjv@Galatians:2:11-14|. {Given to him} (\dotheisan aut“i\). First aorist passive participle of \did“mi\ with dative case. Peter claimed wisdom for himself, but recognises that Paul had the gift also. His language here may have caution in it as well as commendation. "St. Peter speaks of him with affection and respect, yet maintains the right to criticise" (Bigg).

rwp@2Peter:3:16 @{As also in all his epistles} (\h“s kai en pasais epistolais\). We do not know to how many Peter here refers. There is no difficulty in supposing that Peter "received every one of St. Paul's Epistles within a month or two of its publication" (Bigg). And yet Peter does not here assert the formation of a canon of Paul's Epistles. {Speaking in them of these things} (\lal“n en autais peri tout“n\). Present active participle of \lale“\. That is to say, Paul also wrote about the second coming of Christ, as is obviously true. {Hard to be understood} (\dusnoˆta\). Late verbal from \dus\ and \noe“\ (in Aristotle, Lucian, Diog. Laert.), here only in N.T. We know that the Thessalonians persisted in misrepresenting Paul on this very subject of the second coming as Hymenaeus and Philetus did about the resurrection (2Timothy:2:17|) and Spitta holds that Paul's teaching about grace was twisted to mean moral laxity like strkjv@Galatians:3:10; strkjv@Romans:3:20,28; strkjv@5:20| (with which cf. strkjv@6:1| as a case in point), etc. Peter does not say that he himself did not understand Paul on the subject of faith and freedom. {Unlearned} (\amatheis\). Old word (alpha privative and \manthan“\ to learn), ignorant, here only in N.T. {Unsteadfast} (\astˆriktoi\). See on ¯2:14|. {Wrest} (\streblousin\). Present active indicative of \streblo“\, old verb (from \streblos\ twisted, \streph“\, to turn), here only in N.T. {The other scriptures} (\tas loipas graphas\). There is no doubt that the apostles claimed to speak by the help of the Holy Spirit (1Thessalonians:5:27; strkjv@Colossians:4:16|) just as the prophets of old did (2Peter:1:20f.|). Note \loipas\ (rest) here rather than \allas\ (other). Peter thus puts Paul's Epistles on the same plane with the O.T., which was also misused (Matthew:5:21-44; strkjv@15:3-6; strkjv@19:3-10|).

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:2 @{To the end that} (\eis to\). One of Paul's favourite idioms for purpose, \eis to\ and the infinitive. {Ye be not quickly shaken} (\mˆ tache“s saleuthˆnai humas\). First aorist passive infinitive of \saleu“\, old verb to agitate, to cause to totter like a reed (Matthew:11:7|), the earth (Hebrews:12:26|). Usual negative \mˆ\ and accusative of general reference \humas\ with the infinitive. {From your mind} (\apo tou noos\). Ablative case of nous, mind, reason, sober sense, "from your witte" (Wyclif), to "keep their heads." {Nor yet be troubled} (\mˆde throeisthai\). Old verb \throe“\, to cry aloud (from \throos\, clamour, tumult), to be in a state of nervous excitement (present passive infinitive, as if it were going on), "a continued state of agitation following the definite shock received (\saleuthˆnai\)" (Milligan). {Either by spirit} (\mˆte dia pneumatos\). By ecstatic utterance (1Thessalonians:5:10|). The nervous fear that the coming was to be at once prohibited by \mˆde\ Paul divides into three sources by \mˆte, mˆte, mˆte\. No individual claim to divine revelation (the gift of prophecy) can justify the statement. {Or by word} (\mˆte dia logou\). Oral statement of a conversation with Paul (Lightfoot) to this effect {as from us}. An easy way to set aside Paul's first Epistle by report of a private remark from Paul. {Or by epistle as from us} (\mˆte di' epistolˆs h“s di' hˆm“n\). In strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:13-5:3| Paul had plainly said that Jesus would come as a thief in the night and had shown that the dead would not be left out in the rapture. But evidently some one claimed to have a private epistle from Paul which supported the view that Jesus was coming at once, {as that the day of the Lord is now present} (\h“s hoti enestˆken hˆ hˆmera tou kuriou\). Perfect active indicative of \enistˆmi\, old verb, to place in, but intransitive in this tense to stand in or at or near. Songs:"is imminent" (Lightfoot). The verb is common in the papyri. In strkjv@1Corinthians:3:22; strkjv@Romans:8:38| we have a contrast between \ta enest“ta\, the things present, and \ta mellonta\, the things future (to come). The use of \h“s hoti\ may be disparaging here, though that is not true in strkjv@2Corinthians:5:19|. In the _Koin‚_ it comes in the vernacular to mean simply "that" (Moulton, _Proleg_., p. 212), but that hardly seems the case in the N.T. (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1033). Here it means "to wit that," though "as that" or "as if" does not miss it much. Certainly it flatly denies that by conversation or by letter he had stated that the second coming was immediately at hand. "It is this misleading assertion that accounts both for the increased discouragement of the faint-hearted to encourage whom Paul writes strkjv@1:3-2:17|, and for the increased meddlesomeness of the idle brethren to warn whom Paul writes strkjv@3:1-18|" (Frame). It is enough to give one pause to note Paul's indignation over this use of his name by one of the over-zealous advocates of the view that Christ was coming at once. It is true that Paul was still alive, but, if such a "pious fraud" was so common and easily condoned as some today argue, it is difficult to explain Paul's evident anger. Moreover, Paul's words should make us hesitate to affirm that Paul definitely proclaimed the early return of Jesus. He hoped for it undoubtedly, but he did not specifically proclaim it as so many today assert and accuse him of misleading the early Christians with a false presentation.

rwp@2Timothy:4:17 @{But the Lord stood by me} (\ho de kurios moi parestˆ\). Second aorist active of \paristˆmi\ (intransitive use), "took his stand by my side." See strkjv@Romans:16:2|. Clearly Jesus appeared to Paul now at this crisis and climax as he had done so many times before. {Strengthened me} (\enedunam“sen me\). "Poured power into me." See strkjv@Phillipians:4:13|. {That through me the message might be fully proclaimed} (\hina di' emou to kˆrugma plˆrophorˆthˆi\). Final clause with \hina\ and first aorist passive subjunctive of \plˆrophore“\ (see verse 5|). Either to the rulers in Rome now or, if the first imprisonment, by his release and going to Spain. {And that all the Gentiles might hear} (\kai akous“sin panta ta ethnˆ\). Continuation of the purpose with the aorist active subjunctive of \akou“\. {I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion} (\erusthˆn ek stomatos leontos\). First aorist passive indicative of \ruomai\ (1Thessalonians:1:10|). A proverb, but not certain what the application is whether to Nero or to Satan (1Thessalonians:2:18|) or to the lion in the arena where Paul could not be sent because a Roman citizen.

rwp@Acts:7:1 @{Are these things so?} (\ei tauta hout“s echei\). On this use of \ei\ in a direct question see on ¯1:6|. Literally "Do these things hold thus?" A formal question by the high priest like our "Do you plead guilty, or not guilty?" (Furneaux). The abrupt question of the high priest would serve to break the evident spell of the angelic look on Stephen's face. Two charges had been made against Stephen (1) speaking against the holy temple, (2) changing the customs which Moses had delivered. Stephen could not give a yes or no answer to these two charges. There was an element of truth in each of them and a large amount of error all mixed together. Songs:he undertakes to explain his real position by the historical method, that is to say, by a rapid survey of God's dealing with the people of Israel and the Gentiles. It is the same method adopted by Paul in Pisidian Antioch (Acts:13:16ff.|) after he had become the successor of Stephen in his interpretation of the universal mission of Christianity. If one is disposed to say that Luke made up this speech to suit Stephen's predicament, he has to explain how the style is less Lukan than the narrative portions of Acts with knowledge of Jewish traditions that a Greek would not be likely to know. Precisely how Luke obtained the data for the speech we do not know, but Saul heard it and Philip, one of the seven, almost certainly. Both could have given Luke help about it. It is even possible that some one took notes of this important address. We are to remember also that the speech was interrupted at the end and may not include all that Stephen meant to say. But enough is given to give us a good idea of how Stephen met the first charge "by showing that the worship of God is not confined to Jerusalem or the Jewish temple" (Page). Then he answers the second charge by proving that God had many dealings with their fathers before Moses came and that Moses foretold the coming of the Messiah who is now known to be Jesus. It is at this point (verse 51|) that Stephen becomes passionate and so powerful that the wolves in the Sanhedrin lose all self-control. It is a great and masterful exposition of the worldwide mission of the gospel of Christ in full harmony with the Great Commission of Christ. The apostles had been so busy answering the Sadducees concerning the Resurrection of Christ and maintaining their freedom to teach and preach that they had not pushed the world-wide propaganda of the gospel as Jesus had commanded after they had received the Promise of the Father. But Stephen had proclaimed the same message of Christ and was now facing the same fate. Peter's mind had been enlightened by the Holy Spirit so that he could rightly interpret Joel and David in the light of Pentecost. "Songs:Stephen read the history of the Old Testament with new eyes in the light of the life and death of Jesus" (Furneaux).

rwp@Acts:9:20 @{He proclaimed Jesus} (\ekˆrussen ton Iˆsoun\). Imperfect indicative, inchoative, began to preach. Jesus, not Christ, is the correct text here. He did this first preaching in the Jewish synagogues, a habit of his life when possible, and following the example of Jesus. {That he is the Son of God} (\hoti houtos estin ho huios tou theou\). This is Paul's platform as a Christian preacher, one that he always occupied to the very end. It was a complete reversal of his previous position. Jesus had turned him completely around. It is the conclusion that Saul now drew from the vision of the Risen Christ and the message through Ananias. By "the Son of God" Saul means the Messiah of promise and hope, the Messianic sense of the Baptist (John:1:34|) and of Nathanael (John:1:49|) for Saul is now proclaiming his faith in Jesus in the very synagogues where he had meant to arrest those who professed their faith in him. Peter laid emphasis on the Resurrection of Jesus as a glorious fact and proclaimed Jesus as Lord and Christ. Paul boldly calls Jesus the Son of God with full acknowledgment of his deity from the very start. Thomas had come to this place slowly (John:20:28|). Saul begins with this truth and never leaves it. With this faith he can shake the world. There is no power in any other preaching.

rwp@Acts:13:5 @{Proclaimed} (\katˆggellon\). Imperfect active of \kataggell“\, inchoative, began to proclaim. This was Paul's rule of procedure, "to the Jew first" (Romans:1:16; strkjv@Acts:13:46; strkjv@17:2; strkjv@18:4,19; strkjv@19:8|). {They had also} (\eichon de kai\). Imperfect active, descriptive. {As their attendant} (\hupˆretˆn\). Literally, "under-rower" (\hupo, ˆretˆs\) in the trireme. Probably here minister (\chazzan\) or assistant in the synagogue as in strkjv@Luke:4:20|. Cf. strkjv@Matthew:5:25|. It is not clear what John Mark did, though he was evidently selected by Barnabas as his cousin. He may have helped in the baptizing. There were probably others also in the company (verse 13|). The "also" may mean that Mark did some preaching. Barnabas was probably the leader in the work in these Jewish synagogues.

rwp@Acts:13:38 @{Through this man} (\dia toutou\). This very man whom the Jews had crucified and whom God had raised from the dead. Remission of sins (\aphesis hamarti“n\) is proclaimed (\kataggelletai\) to you. This is the keynote of Paul's message as it had been that of Peter at Pentecost (2:38; strkjv@5:31; strkjv@10:43|). Cf. strkjv@26:18|. This glorious message Paul now presses home in his exhortation.

rwp@Acts:13:48 @{As the Gentiles heard this they were glad} (\akouonta ta ethnˆ echairon\). Present active participle of \akou“\ and imperfect active of \chair“\, linear action descriptive of the joy of the Gentiles. {Glorified the word of God} (\edoxazon ton logon tou theou\). Imperfect active again. The joy of the Gentiles increased the fury of the Jews. "The synagogue became a scene of excitement which must have been something like the original speaking with tongues" (Rackham). The joy of the Gentiles was to see how they could receive the higher blessing of Judaism without circumcision and other repellent features of Jewish ceremonialism. It was the gospel of grace and liberty from legalism that Paul had proclaimed. Whether strkjv@Galatians:4:13| describes this incident or not (the South Galatian theory), it illustrates it when Gentiles received Paul as if he were Christ Jesus himself. It was triumph with the Gentiles, but defeat with the Jews. {As many as were ordained to eternal life} (\hosoi ˆsan tetagmenoi eis z“ˆn ai“nion\). Periphrastic past perfect passive indicative of \tass“\, a military term to place in orderly arrangement. The word "ordain" is not the best translation here. "Appointed," as Hackett shows, is better. The Jews here had voluntarily rejected the word of God. On the other side were those Gentiles who gladly accepted what the Jews had rejected, not all the Gentiles. Why these Gentiles here ranged themselves on God's side as opposed to the Jews Luke does not tell us. This verse does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency. There is no evidence that Luke had in mind an _absolutum decretum_ of personal salvation. Paul had shown that God's plan extended to and included Gentiles. Certainly the Spirit of God does move upon the human heart to which some respond, as here, while others push him away. {Believed} (\episteusan\). Summary or constative first aorist active indicative of \pisteu“\. The subject of this verb is the relative clause. By no manner of legerdemain can it be made to mean "those who believe were appointed." It was saving faith that was exercised only by those who were appointed unto eternal life, who were ranged on the side of eternal life, who were thus revealed as the subjects of God's grace by the stand that they took on this day for the Lord. It was a great day for the kingdom of God.

rwp@Acts:14:4 @{But the multitude of the city was divided} (\eschisthˆ de to plˆthos tˆs pole“s\). First aorist passive indicative of \schiz“\, old verb to split, to make a schism or factions as Sadducees and Pharisees (23:7|). This division was within the Gentile populace. Part held (\hoi men ˆsan\), literally "some were with the Jews" (\sun tois Ioudaiois\), part with the apostles (\hoi de sun tois apostolois\). Common demonstrative of contrast (\hoi men, hoi de\, Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 694). The Jewish leaders made some impression on the Gentiles as at Antioch in Pisidia and later at Thessalonica (17:4f.|). This is the first time in the Acts that Paul and Barnabas are termed "apostles" (see also verse 14|). Elsewhere in the Acts the word is restricted to the twelve. Certainly Luke does not here employ it in that technical sense. To have followed Jesus in his ministry and to have seen the Risen Christ was essential to the technical use (1:22f.|). Whether Barnabas had seen the Risen Christ we do not know, but certainly Paul had (1Corinthians:9:1f.; strkjv@15:8|). Paul claimed to be an apostle on a par with the twelve (Galatians:1:1,16-18|). The word originally means simply one sent (John:13:16|) like messengers of the churches with the collection (2Corinthians:8:23|). The Jews used it of those sent from Jerusalem to collect the temple tribute. Paul applies the word to James the Lord's brother (Galatians:1:19|), to Epaphroditus (Phillipians:2:25|) as the messenger of the church in Philippi, to Silvanus and Timothy (1Thessalonians:2:6; strkjv@Acts:18:5|), apparently to Apollos (1Corinthians:4:9|), and to Andronicus and Junias (Romans:16:6f.|). He even calls the Judaizers "false apostles" (2Corinthians:11:13|).

rwp@Acts:14:15 @{Sirs} (\andres\). Literally, Men. Abrupt, but courteous. {We also are men of like passions with you} (\kai hˆmeis homoiopatheis esmen humin anthr“poi\). Old adjective from \homoios\ (like) and \pasch“\, to experience. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@James:5:17|. It means "of like nature" more exactly and affected by like sensations, not "gods" at all. Their conduct was more serious than the obeisance of Cornelius to Peter (10:25f.|). \Humin\ is associative instrumental case. {And bring you good tidings} (\euaggelizomenoi\). No "and" in the Greek, just the present middle participle, "gospelizing you." They are not gods, but evangelists. Here we have Paul's message to a pagan audience without the Jewish environment and he makes the same line of argument seen in strkjv@Acts:17:21-32; strkjv@Romans:1:18-23|. At Antioch in Pisidia we saw Paul's line of approach to Jews and proselytes (Acts:13:16-41|). {That ye should turn from these vain things} (\apo tout“n t“n matai“n epistrephein\). He boldly calls the worship of Jupiter and Mercury and all idols "vain" or empty things, pointing to the statues and the temple. {Unto the living God} (\epi theon z“nta\). They must go the whole way. Our God is a live God, not a dead statue. Paul is fond of this phrase (2Corinthians:6:16; strkjv@Romans:9:26|). {Who made} (\hos epoiˆsen\). The one God is alive and is the Creator of the Universe just as Paul will argue in Athens (Acts:17:24|). Paul here quotes strkjv@Psalms:146:6| and has strkjv@Genesis:1:1| in mind. See also strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:9| where a new allegiance is also claimed as here.

rwp@Acts:15:1 @{And certain men came down from Judea} (\kai tines katelthontes apo tˆs Ioudaias\). Evidently the party of the circumcision in the church in Jerusalem (11:2|) had heard of the spread of the gospel among the Gentiles in Cyprus, Pamphylia, and South Galatia (Phrygia, Pisidia, Lycaonia). Possibly John Mark after his desertion at Perga (13:13|) told of this as one of his reasons for coming home. At any rate echoes of the jubilation in Antioch in Syria would be certain to reach Jerusalem. The Judaizers in Jerusalem, who insisted that all the Gentile Christians must become Jews also, had acquiesced in the case of Cornelius and his group (11:1-18|) after plain proof by Peter that it was the Lord's doing. But they had not agreed to a formal campaign to turn the exception into the rule and to make Christianity mainly Gentile with a few Jews instead of mainly Jewish with a few Gentiles. Since Paul and Barnabas did not come up to Jerusalem, the leaders among the Judaizers decided to go down to Antioch and attack Paul and Barnabas there. They had volunteered to go without church action in Jerusalem for their activity is disclaimed by the conference (Acts:15:24|). In strkjv@Galatians:2:4| Paul with some heat describes these Judaizers as "false brethren, secretly introduced who sneaked in to spy out our liberty." It is reasonably certain that this visit to Jerusalem described in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| is the same one as the Jerusalem Conference in Acts strkjv@15:5-29| in spite of the effort of Ramsay to identify it with that in strkjv@11:29f|. Paul in Galatians is not giving a list of his visits to Jerusalem. He is showing his independence of the twelve apostles and his equality with them. He did not see them in strkjv@11:29f.|, but only "the elders." In strkjv@Acts:15| Luke gives the outward narrative of events, in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| Paul shows us the private interview with the apostles when they agreed on their line of conduct toward the Judaizers. In strkjv@Galatians:2:2| by the use of "them" (\autois\) Paul seems to refer to the first public meeting in Acts before the private interview that came in between verses strkjv@15:5-6|. If we recall the difficulty that Peter had on the subject of preaching the gospel to the heathen (10:1-11:18|), we can the better understand the attitude of the Judaizers. They were men of sincere convictions without a doubt, but they were obscurantists and unable and unwilling to receive new light from the Lord on a matter that involved their racial and social prejudices. They recalled that Jesus himself had been circumcised and that he had said to the Syro-Phoenician woman that he had come only save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew:15:24ff.|). They argued that Christ had not repealed circumcision. Songs:one of the great religious controversies of all time was begun, that between spiritual religion and ritualistic or ceremonial religion. It is with us yet with baptism taking the place of circumcision. These self-appointed champions of circumcision for Gentile Christians were deeply in earnest. {Taught the brethren} (\edidaskon tous adelphous\). Inchoative imperfect active, began to teach and kept it up. Their attitude was one of supercilious superiority. They probably resented the conduct of Barnabas, who, when sent by the Church in Jerusalem to investigate the conversion of the Greeks in Antioch (11:20-26|), did not return and report till a strong church had been established there with the help of Saul and only then with a big collection to confuse the issue. Paul and Barnabas were on hand, but the Judaizers persisted in their efforts to force their views on the church in Antioch. It was a crisis. {Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved} (\ean me peritmˆthˆte t“i ethei M“use“s, ou dunasthe s“thˆnai\). There was the dictum of the Judaizers to the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas had been circumcised. This is probably the precise language employed, for they spoke in Greek to these Greeks. It is a condition of the third class (undetermined, but with prospect of being determined, \ean\ plus the first aorist passive subjunctive of \peritemn“\). There was thus hope held out for them, but only on condition that they be circumcised. The issue was sharply drawn. The associative instrumental case (\t“i ethei\) is customary. "Saved" (\s“thˆnai\) here is the Messianic salvation. This doctrine denied the efficacy of the work of Christ.

rwp@Acts:16:15 @{And when she was baptized} (\h“s de ebaptisthˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \baptiz“\. The river Gangites was handy for the ordinance and she had now been converted and was ready to make this public declaration of her faith in Jesus Christ. {And her household} (\kai ho oikos autˆs\). Who constituted her "household"? The term \oikos\, originally means the building as below, "into my house" and then it includes the inmates of a house. There is nothing here to show whether Lydia's "household" went beyond "the women" employed by her who like her had heard the preaching of Paul and had believed. "Possibly Euodia and Syntyche and the other women, strkjv@Phillipians:4:2,3|, may have been included in the family of Lydia, who may have employed many slaves and freed women in her trade" (Knowling). "This statement cannot be claimed as any argument for infant baptism, since the Greek word may mean her servants or her work-people" (Furneaux). In the household baptisms (Cornelius, Lydia, the jailor, Crispus) one sees "infants" or not according to his predilections or preferences. {If ye have judged me} (\ei kekrikate me\). Condition of the first class, assumed to be true (\ei\ and the indicative, here perfect active of \krin“\). She had confessed her faith and submitted to baptism as proof that she was "faithful to the Lord" (\pistˆn t“i kuri“i\), believing on the Lord. "If she was fit for that, surely she was fit to be their hostess" (Furneaux). And Paul and his party had clearly no comfortable place to stay while in Philippi. The ancient hotels or inns were abominable. Evidently Paul demurred for there were four of them and he did not wish to sacrifice his independence or be a burden even to a woman of wealth. {And she constrained us} (\kai parebiasato hˆmas\). Effective first aorist middle of \parabiazomai\, late word, in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:24:29|. Some moral force (\bia\) or hospitable persuasion was required (cf. strkjv@1Samuel:28:23|), but Lydia had her way as women usually do. Songs:he accepted Lydia's hospitality in Philippi, though he worked for his own living in Thessalonica (2Thessalonians:3:8|) and elsewhere (2Corinthians:11:9|). Songs:far only women have been won to Christ in Philippi. The use of "us" shows that Luke was not a householder in Philippi.

rwp@Acts:17:13 @{Was proclaimed} (\katˆggelˆ\). Second aorist passive indicative of \kataggell“\, common late verb as in strkjv@Acts:16:21|. {Of Paul} (\hupo Paulou\). By Paul, of course. {Stirring up and troubling the multitudes} (\saleuontes kai tarassontes tous ochlous\). Shaking the crowds like an earthquake (4:31|) and disturbing like a tornado (17:8|). Success at Thessalonica gave the rabbis confidence and courage. The attack was sharp and swift. The Jews from Antioch in Pisidia had likewise pursued Paul to Iconium and Lystra. How long Paul had been in Beroea Luke does not say. But a church was established here which gave a good account of itself later and sent a messenger (Acts:20:4|) with their part of the collection to Jerusalem. This quiet and noble town was in a whirl of excitement over the attacks of the Jewish emissaries from Thessalonica who probably made the same charge of treason against Paul and Silas.

rwp@Acts:25:26 @{No certain thing} (\asphales ti--ou\). Nothing definite or reliable (\a\ privative, \sphall“\, to trip). All the charges of the Sanhedrin slipped away or were tripped up by Paul. Festus confesses that he had nothing left and thereby convicts himself of gross insincerity in his proposal to Paul in verse 9| about going up to Jerusalem. By his own statement he should have set Paul free. The various details here bear the marks of the eyewitness. Luke was surely present and witnessed this grand spectacle with Paul as chief performer. {Unto my lord} (\t“i kuri“i\). Augustus (Octavius) and Tiberius refused the title of \kurios\ (lord) as too much like _rex_ (king) and like master and slave, but the servility of the subjects gave it to the other emperors who accepted it (Nero among them). Antoninus Pius put it on his coins. Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 105) gives an ostracon dated Aug. 4, A.D. 63 with the words "in the year nine of Nero the lord" (\enatou Ner“nos tou kuriou\). Deissmann (_op. cit._, pp. 349ff.) runs a most interesting parallel "between the cult of Christ and the cult of Caesar in the application of the term \kurios\, lord" in ostraca, papyri, inscriptions. Beyond a doubt Paul has all this fully in mind when he says in strkjv@1Corinthians:12:3| that "no one is able to say \Kurios Iˆsous\ except in the Holy Spirit" (cf. also strkjv@Phillipians:2:11|). The Christians claimed this word for Christ and it became the test in the Roman persecutions as when Polycarp steadily refused to say " Lord Caesar" and insisted on saying "Lord Jesus" when it meant his certain death. {Before you} (\eph' hum“n\). The whole company. In no sense a new trial, but an examination in the presence of these prominent men to secure data and to furnish entertainment and pleasure to Agrippa (verse 22|). {Especially before thee} (\malista epi sou\). Out of courtesy. It was the main reason as verse 22| shows. Agrippa was a Jew and Festus was glad of the chance to see what he thought of Paul's case. {After examination had} (\tˆs anakrise“s genomenˆs\). Genitive absolute, "the examination having taken place." \Anakrisis\ from \anakrin“\ (cf. strkjv@12:19; strkjv@24:8; strkjv@28:18|) is a legal term for preliminary examination. Only here in the N.T. Inscriptions and papyri give it as examination of slaves or other property. {That I may have somewhat to write} (\hop“s sch“ ti graps“\). Ingressive aorist subjunctive \sch“\ (may get) with \hop“s\ (final particle like \hina\). \Ti graps“\ in indirect question after \sch“\ is either future indicative or aorist subjunctive (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1045). Festus makes it plain that this is not a "trial," but an examination for his convenience to help him out of a predicament.

rwp@Info_Colossians @ PURPOSE OF THE EPISTLE Epaphras did not come in vain, for Paul was tremendously stirred by the peril to Christianity from the Gnostics (\hoi gn“stikoi\, the knowing ones). He had won his fight for freedom in Christ against the Judaizers who tried to fasten Jewish sacramentarianism upon spiritual Christianity. Now there is an equal danger of the dissipation of vital Christianity in philosophic speculation. In particular, the peril was keen concerning the Person of Christ when the Gnostics embraced Christianity and applied their theory of the universe to him. They split into factions on the subject of Christ. The Docetic (from \doke“\, to seem) Gnostics held that Jesus did not have a real human body, but only a phantom body. He was, in fact, an aeon and had no real humanity. The Cerinthian (followers of Cerinthus) Gnostics admitted the humanity of the man Jesus, but claimed that the Christ was an aeon that came on Jesus at his baptism in the form of a dove and left him on the Cross so that only the man Jesus died. At once this heresy sharpened the issue concerning the Person of Christ already set forth in strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|. Paul met the issue squarely and powerfully portrayed his full-length portrait of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man (both deity and humanity) in opposition to both types of Gnostics. Songs:then Colossians seems written expressly for our own day when so many are trying to rob Jesus Christ of his deity. The Gnostics took varying views of moral issues also as men do now. There were the ascetics with rigorous rules and the licentious element that let down all the bars for the flesh while the spirit communed with God. One cannot understand Colossians without some knowledge of Gnosticism such as may be obtained in such books as Angus's _The Mystery-Religions and Christianity_, Glover's _The Conflict of Religion in the Early Roman Empire_, Kennedy's St. _Paul and the Mystery-Religions_, Lightfoot's _Commentary on Colossians_.

rwp@Colossians:2:4 @{This I say} (\touto leg“\). Paul explains why he has made this great claim for Christ at this point in his discussion. {May delude} (\paralogizˆtai\). Present middle subjunctive of \paralogizomai\, old verb, only here in N.T., from \para\ and \logizomai\, to count aside and so wrong, to cheat by false reckoning, to deceive by false reasoning (Epictetus). {With persuasiveness of speech} (\en pithanologiƒi\). Rare word (Plato) from \pithanos\ and \logos\, speech, adapted to persuade, then speciously leading astray. Only here in N.T. One papyrus example. The art of persuasion is the height of oratory, but it easily degenerates into trickery and momentary and flashy deceit such as Paul disclaimed in strkjv@1Corinthians:2:4| (\ouk en pithois sophias logois\) where he uses the very adjective \pithos\ (persuasive) of which \pithanos\ (both from \peith“\) is another form. It is curious how winning champions of error, like the Gnostics and modern faddists, can be with plausibility that catches the gullible.

rwp@Ephesians:3:5 @{In other generations} (\heterais geneais\). Locative case of time. He had already claimed this revelation for himself (verse 3|). Now he claims it for all the other apostles and prophets of God.

rwp@Info_Epistles-Paul @ SOME BOOKS ON THE PAULINE EPISTLES Bate, _As a Whole Guide to the Epistles of St. Paul_ (1927). Bonnet-Schroeder, _Epitres de Paul_ (4 ed. 1912). Champlain, _The Epistles of Paul_ (1906). Clemen, _Einheitlichkeit d. paul. Briefe_ (1894). Conybeare and Howson, _Life and Epistles of St. Paul_. Drummond, _The Epistles of Paul the Apostle_ (1899). Hayes, _Paul and His Epistles_ (1915). Heinrici, _Die Forschungen uber die paul. Briefe_ (1886). Lake, _The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul_ (1915). Lewin, _Life and Epistles of St. Paul_. (1875). Neil, _The Pauline Epistles_ (1906). Scott, _The Pauline Epistles_ (1909). Shaw, _The Pauline Epistles_ (1903). Vischer, _Die Paulusbriefe_ (1910). Voelter, _Die Composition der paul. Haupt Briefe_ (1890). Voelter, _Paulus und seine Briefe_ (1905). Way, _The Letters of Paul to Seven Churches and Three Friends_ (1906) Weinel, _Die Echtheit der paul. Hauptbriefe_ (1920). Weiss, B., _Present Status of the Inquiry Concerning the Genuineness of the Pauline Epistles_ (1901). Weiss, B., _Die Paulinische Briefe_ (1902). Wood, _Life, Letters, and Religion of St. Paul_ (1925). strkjv@Galatians:1:1 @{Not from men, neither through men} (\ouk ap' anthr“p“n oude di' anthr“pou\). The bluntness of Paul's denial is due to the charge made by the Judaizers that Paul was not a genuine apostle because not one of the twelve. This charge had been made in Corinth and called forth the keenest irony of Paul (2Corinthians:10-12|). In strkjv@Galatians:1; 2| Paul proves his independence of the twelve and his equality with them as recognized by them. Paul denies that his apostleship had a human source (\ouk ap' anthr“p“n\) and that it had come to him through (\di' anthr“pou\) a human channel (Burton). {But through Jesus Christ and God the Father} (\alla dia Iˆsou Christou kai theou patros\). The call to be an apostle came to Paul through Jesus Christ as he claimed in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:1| and as told in strkjv@Acts:9:4-6; strkjv@22:7ff.; strkjv@26:16ff|. He is apostle also by the will of God. {Who raised him from the dead} (\tou egeirantos auton ek nekr“n\). And therefore Paul was qualified to be an apostle since he had seen the Risen Christ (1Corinthians:9:1; strkjv@15:8f.|). This verb \egeir“\ is often used in N.T. for raising from the sleep of death, to wake up the dead.

rwp@Hebrews:5:5 @{Songs:Christ also} (\hout“s kai ho Christos\). Just as with Aaron. Jesus had divine appointment as high priest also. {To be made} (\genˆthˆnai\). First aorist passive infinitive of \ginomai\. {High priest} (\archierea\). Predicate accusative agreeing with \heauton\ (himself) object of \edoxasen\. {But he that spake unto him} (\all' ho lalˆsas pros auton\). Ellipsis of \edoxasen\ to be supplied from preceding clause. God did glorify Jesus in appointing him priest as we see in strkjv@Psalms:2:7| quoted already as Messianic (Hebrews:1:5|). Jesus himself repeatedly claimed that the Father sent him on his mission to the world (John:5:30,43; strkjv@8:54; strkjv@17:5|, etc.). Bruce holds that Christ's priesthood is co-eval with his Sonship. Davidson thinks it is merely suitable because he is Son. Clearly the Father nominated (Dods) the Son to the Messianic priesthood (John:3:16|).

rwp@James:5:3 @{Are rusted} (\kati“tai\). Perfect passive indicative (singular for \chrusos\ and \arguros\ are grouped as one) of \katio“\, late verb (from \ios\, rust) with perfective sense of \kata\, to rust through (down to the bottom), found only here, Sir. strkjv@12:11, Epictetus (_Diss_. 4, 6, 14). {Rust} (\ios\). Poison in strkjv@James:3:8; strkjv@Romans:3:13| (only N.T. examples of old word). Silver does corrode and gold will tarnish. Dioscorides (V.91) tells about gold being rusted by chemicals. Modern chemists can even transmute metals as the alchemists claimed. {For a testimony} (\eis marturion\). Common idiom as in strkjv@Matthew:8:4| (use of \eis\ with accusative in predicate). {Against you} (\humin\). Dative of disadvantage as in strkjv@Mark:6:11| (\eis marturion autois\) where in the parallel passage (Luke:9:5|) we have \eis marturion ep' autous\. "To you" will make sense, as in strkjv@Matthew:8:4; strkjv@10:18|, but "against" is the idea here as in strkjv@Luke:21:13|. {Shall eat} (\phagetai\). Future middle (late form from \ephagon\) of defective verb \esthi“\, to eat. {Your flesh} (\tas sarkas\). The plural is used for the fleshy parts of the body like pieces of flesh (Revelation:17:16; strkjv@19:18,21|). Rust eats like a canker, like cancer in the body. {As fire} (\h“s pur\). Editors differ here whether to connect this phrase with \phagetai\, just before (as Mayor), for fire eats up more rapidly than rust, or with the following, as Westcott and Hort and Ropes, that is the eternal fire of Gehenna which awaits them (Matthew:25:41; strkjv@Mark:9:44|). This interpretation makes a more vivid picture for \ethˆsaurisate\ (ye have laid up, first aorist active indicative of \thˆsauriz“\, strkjv@Matthew:6:19| and see strkjv@Proverbs:16:27|), but it is more natural to take it with \phagetai\.

rwp@John:1:15 @{Beareth witness} (\marturei\). Historical (dramatic) present indicative of this characteristic word in John (cf. strkjv@1:17f.|). See strkjv@1:32,34| for historical examples of John's witness to Christ. This sentence is a parenthesis in Westcott and Hort's text, though the Revised Version makes a parenthesis of most of verse 14|. The witness of John is adduced in proof of the glory full of grace and truth already claimed for the Incarnate Logos. {Crieth} (\kekragen\). Second perfect active indicative of \kraz“\, old verb for loud crying, repeated in dramatic form again for emphasis recalling the wonderful Voice in the wilderness which the Beloved Disciple can still hear echoing through the years. {This was} (\houtos ˆn\). Imperfect indicative where John throws the tense back in past time when he looked forward to the coming of the Messiah as in strkjv@Acts:3:10| where we should prefer "is" (\estin\). Gildersleeve (_Syntax_, p. 96) calls this the "imperfect of sudden appreciation of the real state of things." {Of whom I said} (\hon eipon\). But B C and a corrector of Aleph (Westcott and Hort) have \ho eip“n\ "the one who said," a parenthetical explanation about the Baptist, not the words of the Baptist about Christ. {After me} (\opis“ mou\). See also strkjv@1:27|. Later in time John means. He described "the Coming One" (\ho erchomenos\) before he saw Jesus. The language of John here is precisely that in strkjv@Matthew:3:11| \ho opis“ mou erchomenos\ (cf. strkjv@Mark:1:7|). The Beloved Disciple had heard the Baptist say these very words, but he also had the Synoptic Gospels. {Is become} (\gegonen\). Second perfect active indicative of \ginomai\. It is already an actual fact when the Baptist is speaking. {Before me} (\emprosthen mou\). In rank and dignity, the Baptist means, \ho ischuroteros mou\ "the one mightier than I" (Mark:1:7|) and \ischuroteros mou\ "mightier than I" (Matthew:3:11|). In strkjv@John:3:28| \emprosthen ekeinou\ (before him, the Christ) does mean priority in time, but not here. This superior dignity of the Messiah John proudly recognizes always (John:3:25-30|). {For he was before me} (\hoti pr“tos mou ˆn\). Paradox, but clear. He had always been (\ˆn imperfect\) before John in his Pre-incarnate state, but "after" John in time of the Incarnation, but always ahead of John in rank immediately on his Incarnation. \Pr“tos mou\ (superlative with ablative) occurs here when only two are compared as is common in the vernacular _Koin‚_. Songs:the Beloved Disciple came first (\pr“tos\) to the tomb, ahead of Peter (20:4|). Songs:also \pr“ton hum“n\ in strkjv@15:18| means "before you" as if it were \proteron hum“n\. Verse 30| repeats these words almost exactly.

rwp@John:4:12 @{Art thou} (\Mˆ su ei\). Expecting a negative answer. {Greater than our father Jacob} (\meiz“n ei tou patros hˆm“n Iak“b\). Ablative case \patros\ after the comparative adjective \meiz“n\ (positive \megas\). The Samaritans claimed descent from Jacob through Joseph (tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh). {Cattle} (\thremmata\). Old word from \treph“\, to nourish, nursling, child, flock, cattle. Only here in N.T.

rwp@John:4:20 @{In this mountain} (\en t“i orei tout“i\). Jacob's Well is at the foot of Mount Gerizim toward which she pointed. Sanballat erected a temple on this mountain which was destroyed by John Hyrcanus B.C. 129. Abraham (Genesis:12:7|) and Jacob (Genesis:33:20|) set up altars at Shechem. On Gerizim were proclaimed the blessings recorded in strkjv@Deuteronomy:28|. The Samaritan Pentateuch records an altar set up on Gerizim that is on Ebal (over 200 feet higher than Gerizim) in the Hebrew (Deuteronomy:27:4|). The Samaritans held that Abraham offered up Isaac on Gerizim. The Samaritans kept up this worship on this mountain and a handful do it still. {And ye say} (\kai humeis legete\). Emphasis on \humeis\ (ye). Ye Jews. {Ought to worship} (\proskunein dei\). "Must worship," as of necessity (\dei\). The woman felt that by raising this theological wrangle she would turn the attention of Jesus away from herself and perhaps get some light on the famous controversy. \Proskune“\ in John is always worship, not just respect.

rwp@John:8:25 @{Who art thou?} (\Su tis ei;\). Proleptic use of \su\ before \tis\, "Thou, who art thou?" Cf. strkjv@1:19|. He had virtually claimed to be the Messiah and on a par with God as in strkjv@5:15|. They wish to pin him down and to charge him with blasphemy. {Even that which I have also spoken unto you from the beginning} (\tˆn archˆn hoti kai lal“ humin\). A difficult sentence. It is not clear whether it is an affirmation or a question. The Latin and Syriac versions treat it as affirmative. Westcott and Hort follow Meyer and take it as interrogative. The Greek fathers take it as an exclamation. It seems clear that the adverbial accusative \tˆn archˆn\ cannot mean "from the beginning" like \ap' archˆs\ (15:27|) or \ex archˆs\ (16:4|). The LXX has \tˆn archˆn\ for "at the beginning" or "at the first" (Genesis:43:20|). There are examples in Greek, chiefly negative, where \tˆn archˆn\ means "at all," "essentially," "primarily." Vincent and Bernard so take it here, "Primarily what I am telling you." Jesus avoids the term Messiah with its political connotations. He stands by his high claims already made.

rwp@John:8:54 @{If I glorify myself} (\ean eg“ doxas“ emauton\). Third-class condition with \ean\ and first aorist active subjunctive (or future active indicative) of \doxaz“\. {It is my Father that glorifieth me} (\estin ho patˆr mou ho doxaz“n me\). The position and accent of \estin\ mean: "Actually my Father is the one," etc. {Of whom ye say} (\hon humeis legete\). The accusative of the person (\hon\) with \legete\ is regular (cf. strkjv@10:36|). {Your God} (\theos hum“n\). Songs:Aleph B D and apparently correct, though A C L W Delta Theta have \hˆm“n\ (our God). The \hoti\ can be taken as recitative (direct quotation, \hˆm“n\, our) or declarative (indirect, that, and so \hum“n\). The Jews claimed God as their peculiar national God as they had said in 41|. Songs:Jesus turns this confession and claim against them.

rwp@John:8:55 @{And ye have not known him} (\kai ouk egn“kate auton\). Adversative use again of \kai\="and yet." Perfect active indicative of \gin“sk“\, the verb for experiential knowledge. This was true of the \kosmos\ (1:10; strkjv@17:25|) and of the hostile Jews (16:3|). Jesus prays that the world may know (17:23|) and the handful of disciples had come to know (17:25|). {But I know him} (\eg“ de oida auton\). Equipped by eternal fellowship to reveal the Father (1:1-18|). This peculiar intimate knowledge Jesus had already claimed (7:29|). Jesus used \oida\ (8:19; strkjv@15:21|) or \gin“sk“\ (17:23,25|) for the knowledge of the Father. No undue distinction can be drawn here. {And if I should say} (\kan eip“\). Third-class condition (concession), "even if I say," with \kai ean\ (\kan\) and second aorist active subjunctive. "Suppose I say." {I shall be like you a liar} (\esomai homoios humin pseustˆs\). Apodosis of the condition. \Homoios\ (like) is followed by the associative-instrumental case \humin\. The word \pseustˆs\ (liar), in spite of the statement that they are the children of the devil, the father of lying (8:44|), comes with a sudden jolt because it is a direct charge. This word liar is not considered polite today in public speech when hurled at definite individuals. There is a rather free use of the word in strkjv@1John:2:4,22; strkjv@4:20; strkjv@5:10|. It is not hard to imagine the quick anger of these Pharisees.

rwp@John:20:23 @{Whosesoever sins ye forgive} (\an tin“n aphˆte tas hamartias\). "If the sins of any ye forgive" (\aphˆte\, second aorist active subjunctive with \an\ in the sense of \ean\), a condition of the third class. Precisely so with "retain" (\kratˆte\, present active subjunctive of \krate“\). {They are forgiven} (\aphe“ntai\). Perfect passive indicative of \aphiˆmi\, Doric perfect for \apheintai\. {Are retained} (\kekratˆntai\). Perfect passive indicative of \krate“\. The power to forgive sin belongs only to God, but Jesus claimed to have this power and right (Mark:2:5-7|). What he commits to the disciples and to us is the power and privilege of giving assurance of the forgiveness of sins by God by correctly announcing the terms of forgiveness. There is no proof that he actually transferred to the apostles or their successors the power in and of themselves to forgive sins. In strkjv@Matthew:16:19; strkjv@18:18| we have a similar use of the rabbinical metaphor of binding and loosing by proclaiming and teaching. Jesus put into the hands of Peter and of all believers the keys of the Kingdom which we should use to open the door for those who wish to enter. This glorious promise applies to all believers who will tell the story of Christ's love for men.

rwp@Luke:4:19 @{The acceptable year of the Lord} (\eniauton Kuriou dekton\). He does not mean that his ministry is to be only one year in length as Clement of Alexandria and Origen argued. That is to turn figures into fact. The Messianic age has come, Jesus means to say. On the first day of the year of Jubilee the priests with sound of trumpet proclaimed the blessings of that year (Leviticus:25:8-17|). This great passage justly pictures Christ's conception of his mission and message.

rwp@Luke:4:21 @{And he began to say} (\ˆrxato de legein\). Aorist ingressive active indicative and present infinitive. He began speaking. The moment of hushed expectancy was passed. These may or may not be the first words uttered here by Jesus. Often the first sentence is the crucial one in winning an audience. Certainly this is an arresting opening sentence. {Hath been fulfilled} (\peplˆr“tai\). Perfect passive indicative, {stands fulfilled}. "Today this scripture (Isaiah:61:1,2|, just read) stands fulfilled in your ears." It was a most amazing statement and the people of Nazareth were quick to see the Messianic claim involved. Jesus could only mean that the real year of Jubilee had come, that the Messianic prophecy of Isaiah had come true today, and that in him they saw the Messiah of prophecy. There are critics today who deny that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. To be able to do that, they must reject the Gospel of John and all such passages as this one. And it is no apocalyptic eschatological Messiah whom Jesus here sets forth, but the one who forgives sin and binds up the broken-hearted. The words were too good to be true and to be spoken here at Nazareth by one of their own townsmen!

rwp@Luke:5:5 @{Master} (\epistata\). Used only by Luke in the N.T. and always in addresses to Christ (8:24,45; strkjv@9:33,49; strkjv@17:13|). Common in the older writers for superintendent or overseer (one standing over another). This word recognizes Christ's authority. {We toiled} (\kopiasantes\). This verb is from \kopos\ (\work, toil\) and occurs from Aristophanes on. It used to be said that the notion of weariness in toil appears only in the LXX and the N.T. But Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, pp. 312f.) cites examples from inscriptions on tombstones quite in harmony with the use in the N.T. Peter's protest calls attention also to the whole night of fruitless toil. {But at thy word} (\epi de t“i rhˆmati sou\). On the base of \epi\. Acquiescence to show his obedience to Christ as "Master," but with no confidence whatsoever in the wisdom of this particular command. Besides, fishing in this lake was Peter's business and he really claimed superior knowledge on this occasion to that of Jesus.

rwp@Luke:10:22 @{Knoweth who the Son is} (\gin“skei tis estin ho huios\). Knows by experience, \gin“skei\. Here strkjv@Matthew:11:27| has \epigin“skei\ (fully knows) and simply \ton huion\ (the Son) instead of the "who" (\tis\) clause. Songs:also in "who the Father is" (\tis estin ho pater\). But the same use and contrast of "the Father," "the Son." in both Matthew and Luke, "an aerolite from the Johannean heaven" (Hase). No sane criticism can get rid of this Johannine bit in these Gospels written long before the Fourth Gospel was composed. We are dealing here with the oldest known document about Christ (the Logia) and the picture is that drawn in the Fourth Gospel (see my _The Christ of the Logia_). It is idle to try to whittle away by fantastic exegesis the high claims made by Jesus in this passage. It is an ecstatic prayer in the presence of the Seventy under the rapture of the Holy Spirit on terms of perfect equality and understanding between the Father and the Son in the tone of the priestly prayer in strkjv@John:17|. We are justified in saying that this prayer of supreme Fellowship with the Father in contemplation of final victory over Satan gives us a glimpse of the prayers with the Father when the Son spent whole nights on the mountain alone with the Father. Here is the Messianic consciousness in complete control and with perfect confidence in the outcome. Here as in strkjv@Matthew:11:27| by the use of {willeth to reveal him} (\boulˆtai apokalupsai\). The Son claims the power to reveal the Father "to whomsoever he wills" (\h“i an boulˆtai\, indefinite relative and present subjunctive of \boulomai\, to will, not the future indicative). This is divine sovereignty most assuredly. Human free agency is also true, but it is full divine sovereignty in salvation that is here claimed along with possession (\paredothˆ\, timeless aorist passive indicative) of all power from the Father. Let that supreme claim stand.

rwp@Luke:21:17 @{Not a hair of your head shall perish} (\thrix ek tˆs kephalˆs hum“n ou mˆ apolˆtai\). Only in Luke. Second aorist middle subjunctive of \apollumi\ with \ou mˆ\ (double negative). Jesus has just said that some they will put to death. Hence it is spiritual safety here promised such as Paul claimed about death in strkjv@Phillipians:1:21|.

rwp@Luke:22:71 @{For we ourselves have heard} (\autoi gar ˆkousamen\). They were right if Jesus is not what he claimed to be. They were eternally wrong for he is the Christ, the Son of man, the Son of God. They made their choice and must face Christ as Judge.

rwp@Luke:23:35 @{The people stood beholding} (\histˆkei\). Past perfect active of \histˆmi\, intransitive and like imperfect. A graphic picture of the dazed multitude, some of whom may have been in the Triumphal Entry on Sunday morning. {Scoffed} (\exemuktˆrizon\). Imperfect active, perhaps inchoative, began to turn up (out, \ex\) at the dying Christ. The language comes from strkjv@Psalms:22:7|. {The Christ of God} (\ho Christos tou theou\). He had claimed to be just this (22:67,70|). The sarcastic sneer (he saved others; let him save others, for himself he cannot save) is in strkjv@Mark:15:31; strkjv@Matthew:27:42|. Luke alone gives the contemptuous use of \houtos\ (this fellow) and the fling in "the elect" (\ho eklektos\). These rulers were having their day at last.

rwp@Mark:1:14 @{Jesus came into Galilee} (\ˆlthen ho Iˆsous eis tˆn Galilaian\). Here Mark begins the narrative of the active ministry of Jesus and he is followed by Matthew and Luke. Mark undoubtedly follows the preaching of Peter. But for the Fourth Gospel we should not know of the year of work in various parts of the land (Perea, Galilee, Judea, Samaria) preceding the Galilean ministry. John supplements the Synoptic Gospels at this point as often. The arrest of John had much to do with the departure of Jesus from Judea to Galilee (John:4:1-4|). {Preaching the gospel of God} (\kˆruss“n to euaggelion tou theou\). It is the subjective genitive, the gospel that comes from God. Swete observes that repentance (\metanoia\) is the keynote in the message of the Baptist as gospel (\euaggelion\) is with Jesus. But Jesus took the same line as John and proclaimed both repentance and the arrival of the kingdom of God. Mark adds to Matthew's report the words "the time is fulfilled" (\peplˆr“tai ho kairos\). It is a significant fact that John looks backward to the promise of the coming of the Messiah and signalizes the fulfilment as near at hand (perfect passive indicative). It is like Paul's fulness of time (\plˆr“ma tou chronou\) in strkjv@Galatians:4:4| and fulness of the times (\plˆr“ma ton kair“n\) in strkjv@Ephesians:1:10| when he employs the word \kairos\, opportunity or crisis as here in Mark rather than the more general term \chronos\. Mark adds here also: "and believe in the gospel" (\kai pisteuete en t“i euaggeli“i\). Both repent and believe in the gospel. Usually faith in Jesus (or God) is expected as in John strkjv@14:1|. But this crisis called for faith in the message of Jesus that the Messiah had come. He did not use here the term Messiah, for it had come to have political connotations that made its use at present unwise. But the kingdom of God had arrived with the presence of the King. It does make a difference what one believes. Belief or disbelief in the message of Jesus made a sharp cleavage in those who heard him. "Faith in the message was the first step; a creed of some kind lies at the basis of confidence in the Person of Christ, and the occurrence of the phrase \pistuete en t“i euaggeli“i\ in the oldest record of the teaching of our Lord is a valuable witness to this fact" (Swete).

rwp@Mark:2:12 @{Before them all} (\emprosthen pant“n\). strkjv@Luke:5:25| follows Mark in this detail. He picked up (\aras\) his pallet and walked and went home as Jesus had commanded him to do (Mark:2:11|). It was an amazing proceeding and made it unnecessary for Jesus to refute the scribes further on this occasion. The amazement (\existasthai\, our _ecstasy_, as strkjv@Luke:5:26| has it), was too general and great for words. The people could only say: "We never saw it on this fashion" (\Hout“s oudepote eidamen\). Jesus had acted with the power of God and claimed equality with God and had made good his claim. They all marvelled at the {paradoxes} (\paradoxa\, strkjv@Luke:5:26|) of that day. For it all they glorified God.

rwp@Mark:6:3 @{Is not this the carpenter?} (\Ouch houtos estin ho tekt“n;\). strkjv@Matthew:13:55| calls him "the carpenter's son" (\ho tou tektonos huios\). He was both. Evidently since Joseph's death he had carried on the business and was "the carpenter" of Nazareth. The word \tekt“n\ comes from \tekein, tikt“\, to beget, create, like \technˆ\ (craft, art). It is a very old word, from Homer down. It was originally applied to the worker in wood or builder with wood like our carpenter. Then it was used of any artisan or craftsman in metal, or in stone as well as in wood and even of sculpture. It is certain that Jesus worked in wood. Justin Martyr speaks of ploughs, yokes, et cetera, made by Jesus. He may also have worked in stone and may even have helped build some of the stone synagogues in Galilee like that in Capernaum. But in Nazareth the people knew him, his family (no mention of Joseph), and his trade and discounted all that they now saw with their own eyes and heard with their own ears. This word carpenter "throws the only flash which falls on the continuous tenor of the first thirty years from infancy to manhood, of the life of Christ" (Farrar). That is an exaggeration for we have strkjv@Luke:2:41-50| and "as his custom was" (Luke:4:16|), to go no further. But we are grateful for Mark's realistic use of \tekt“n\ here. {And they were offended in him} (\kai eskandalizonto en aut“i\). Songs:exactly strkjv@Matthew:13:56|, {were made to stumble in him}, trapped like game by the \skandalon\ because they could not explain him, having been so recently one of them. "The Nazarenes found their stumbling block in the person or circumstances of Jesus. He became--\petra skandalou\ (1Peter:2:7,8; strkjv@Romans:9:33|) to those who disbelieved" (Swete). Both Mark and strkjv@Matthew:13:57|, which see, preserve the retort of Jesus with the quotation of the current proverb about a prophet's lack of honour in his own country. strkjv@John:4:44| quoted it from Jesus on his return to Galilee long before this. It is to be noted that Jesus here makes a definite claim to being a prophet (\prophˆtˆs\, forspeaker for God), a seer. He was much more than this as he had already claimed to be Messiah (John:4:26; strkjv@Luke:4:21|), the Son of man with power of God (Mark:1:10; strkjv@Matthew:9:6; strkjv@Luke:5:24|), the Son of God (John:5:22|). They stumble at Jesus today as the townspeople of Nazareth did. {In his own house} (\en tˆi oikiƒi autou\). Also in strkjv@Matthew:13:57|. This was the saddest part of it all, that his own brothers in his own home disbelieved his Messianic claims (John:7:5|). This puzzle was the greatest of all.

rwp@Mark:12:35 @{How say the scribes} (\P“s legousin hoi grammateis\). The opponents of Jesus are silenced, but he answers them and goes on teaching (\didask“n\) in the temple as before the attacks began that morning (11:27|). They no longer dare to question Jesus, but he has one to put to them "while the Pharisees were gathered together" (Matthew:22:41|). The question is not a conundrum or scriptural puzzle (Gould), but "He contents himself with pointing out a difficulty, in the solution of which lay the key to the whole problem of His person and work" (Swete). The scribes all taught that the Messiah was to be the son of David (John:7:41|). The people in the Triumphal Entry had acclaimed Jesus as the son of David (Matthew:21:9|). But the rabbis had overlooked the fact that David in strkjv@Psalms:110:1| called the Messiah his Lord also. The deity and the humanity of the Messiah are both involved in the problem. strkjv@Matthew:22:45| observes that "no one was able to answer him a word."

rwp@Mark:14:11 @{And they, when they heard it, were glad} (\hoi de akousantes echarˆsan\). No doubt the rabbis looked on the treachery of Judas as a veritable dispensation of Providence amply justifying their plots against Jesus. {Conveniently} (\eukair“s\). This was the whole point of the offer of Judas. He claimed that he knew enough of the habits of Jesus to enable them to catch him "in the absence of the multitude" (Luke:22:6|) without waiting for the passover to be over, when the crowds would leave. For discussion of the motives of Judas, see on ¯Matthew:26:15|. Mark merely notes the promise of "money" while Matthew mentions "thirty pieces of silver" (Zechariah:11:12|), the price of a slave.

rwp@Matthew:4:17 @{Began Jesus to preach} (\ˆrxato ho Iˆsous kˆrussein\). In Galilee. He had been preaching for over a year already elsewhere. His message carries on the words of the Baptist about "repentance" and the "kingdom of heaven" (Matthew:3:2|) being at hand. The same word for "preaching" (\kˆrussein\) from \kˆrux\, herald, is used of Jesus as of John. Both proclaimed the good news of the kingdom. Jesus is more usually described as the Teacher, (\ho didaskalos\) who taught (\edidasken\) the people. He was both herald and teacher as every preacher should be.

rwp@Matthew:18:1 @{Who then is greatest} (\tis ara meiz“n estin\). The \ara\ seems to point back to the tax-collection incident when Jesus had claimed exemption for them all as "sons" of the Father. But it was not a new dispute, for jealousy had been growing in their hearts. The wonderful words of Jesus to Peter on Mount Hermon (Matthew:16:17-19|) had evidently made Peter feel a fresh sense of leadership on the basis of which he had dared even to rebuke Jesus for speaking of his death (16:22|). And then Peter was one of the three (James and John also) taken with the Master up on the Mount of Transfiguration. Peter on that occasion had spoken up promptly. And just now the tax-collectors had singled out Peter as the one who seemed to represent the group. Mark (Mark:9:33|) represents Jesus as asking them about their dispute on the way into the house, perhaps just after their question in strkjv@Matthew:18:1|. Jesus had noticed the wrangling. It will break out again and again (Matthew:20:20-28; strkjv@Luke:22:24|). Plainly the primacy of Peter was not yet admitted by the others. The use of the comparative \meiz“n\ (so \ho meiz“n\ in verse 4|) rather than the superlative \megistos\ is quite in accord with the _Koin‚_ idiom where the comparative is displacing the superlative (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 667ff.). But it is a sad discovery to find the disciples chiefly concerned about their own places (offices) in the political kingdom which they were expecting.

rwp@Matthew:21:3 @{The Lord} (\ho kurios\). It is not clear how the word would be understood here by those who heard the message though it is plain that Jesus applies it to himself. The word is from \kuros\, power or authority. In the LXX it is common in a variety of uses which appear in the N.T. as master of the slave (Matthew:10:24|), of the harvest (9:38|), of the vineyard (20:8|), of the emperor (Acts:13:27|), of God (Matthew:11:20; strkjv@11:25|), and often of Jesus as the Messiah (Acts:10:36|). Note strkjv@Matthew:8:25|. This is the only time in Matthew where the words \ho kurios\ are applied to Jesus except the doubtful passage in strkjv@28:6|. A similar usage is shown by Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_ and Deissmann's _Light from the Ancient East_. Particularly in Egypt it was applied to "the Lord Serapis" and Ptolemy and Cleopatra are called "the lords, the most great gods" (\hoi kurioi theoi megistoi\). Even Herod the Great and Herod Agrippa I are addressed as "Lord King." In the west the Roman emperors are not so termed till the time of Domitian. But the Christians boldly claimed the word for Christ as Jesus is here represented as using it with reference to himself. It seems as if already the disciples were calling Jesus "Lord" and that he accepted the appellative and used it as here.

rwp@Matthew:23:15 @{Twofold more a son of hell than yourselves} (\huion geennˆs diploteron h–m“n\). It is a convert to Pharisaism rather than Judaism that is meant by "one proselyte" (\hena prosˆluton\), from \proserchomai\, newcomers, aliens. There were two kinds of proselytes: of the gate (not actual Jews, but God-fearers and well-wishers of Judaism, like Cornelius), of righteousness who received circumcision and became actual Jews. But a very small per cent of the latter became Pharisees. There was a Hellenistic Jewish literature (Philo, Sibylline Oracles, etc.) designed to attract Gentiles to Judaism. But the Pharisaic missionary zeal (compass, \periagˆte\, go around) was a comparative failure. And success was even worse, Jesus says with pitiless plainness. The "son of Gehenna" means one fitted for and so destined for Gehenna. "The more converted the more perverted" (H.J. Holtzmann). The Pharisees claimed to be in a special sense sons of the kingdom (Matthew:8:12|). They were more partisan than pious. \Diplous\ (twofold, double) is common in the papyri. The comparative here used, as if from \diplos\, appears also in Appian. Note the ablative of comparison h–m“n. It was a withering thrust.

rwp@Matthew:24:5 @{In my name} (\epi t“i onomati mou\). They will arrogate to themselves false claims of Messiahship in (on the basis of) the name of Christ himself. Josephus (_Wars_ VI, 54) gives there false Christs as one of the reasons for the explosion against Rome that led to the city's destruction. Each new hero was welcomed by the masses including Barcochba. "I am the Messiah," each would say. Forty odd years ago two men in Illinois claimed to be Messiah, each with followers (Schlatter, Schweinfurth). In more recent years Mrs. Annie Besant has introduced a theosophical Messiah and Mrs. Eddy made claims about herself on a par with those of Jesus.

rwp@Matthew:24:15 @{The abomination of desolation} (\to bdelugma tˆs erem“se“s\). An allusion to strkjv@Daniel:9:27; strkjv@11:31; strkjv@12:11|. Antiochus Epiphanes erected an altar to Zeus on the altar of Jehovah (1Macc. strkjv@1:54,59; strkjv@6:7; 2Macc. strkjv@6:1-5). The desolation in the mind of Jesus is apparently the Roman army (Luke:21:20|) in the temple, an application of the words of Daniel to this dread event. The verb \bdelussomai\ is to feel nausea because of stench, to abhor, to detest. Idolatry was a stench to God (Luke:16:15; strkjv@Revelation:17:4|). Josephus tells us that the Romans burned the temple and offered sacrifices to their ensigns placed by the eastern gate when they proclaimed Titus as Emperor.

rwp@Matthew:27:11 @{Now Jesus stood before the governor} (\ho de Iˆsous estathˆ emprosthen tou hˆgemonos\). Here is one of the dramatic episodes of history. Jesus stood face to face with the Roman governor. The verb \estathˆ\, not \estˆ\ (second aorist active), is first aorist passive and can mean "was placed" there, but he stood, not sat. The term \hˆgem“n\ (from \hˆgeomai\, to lead) was technically a _legatus Caesaris_, an officer of the Emperor, more exactly procurator, ruler under the Emperor of a less important province than propraetor (as over Syria). The senatorial provinces like Achaia were governed by proconsuls. Pilate represented Roman law. {Art thou the King of the Jews?} (\Su ei ho basileus t“n Ioudai“n;\). This is what really mattered. Matthew does not give the charges made by the Sanhedrin (Luke:23:2|) nor the private interview with Pilate (John:18:28-32|). He could not ignore the accusation that Jesus claimed to be King of the Jews. Else he could be himself accused to Caesar for disloyalty. Rivals and pretenders were common all over the empire. Songs:here was one more. By his answer ({thou sayest}) Jesus confesses that he is. Songs:Pilate has a problem on his hands. What sort of a king does this one claim to be? {Thou} (\su\) the King of the Jews?

rwp@Matthew:27:17 @{Barabbas or Jesus which is called Christ?} (\Barabbƒn ˆ Iˆsoun ton legomenon Christon;\). Pilate was catching at straws or seeking any loophole to escape condemning a harmless lunatic or exponent of a superstitious cult such as he deemed Jesus to be, certainly in no political sense a rival of Caesar. The Jews interpreted "Christ" for Pilate to be a claim to be King of the Jews in opposition to Caesar, "a most unprincipled proceeding" (Bruce). Songs:he bethought him of the time-honoured custom at the passover of releasing to the people "a prisoner whom they wished" (\desmion hon ˆthelon\). No parallel case has been found, but Josephus mentions the custom (_Ant_. xx. 9,3). Barabbas was for some reason a popular hero, a notable (\episˆmon\), if not notorious, prisoner, leader of an insurrection or revolution (Mark:15:7|) probably against Rome, and so guilty of the very crime that they tried to fasten on Jesus who only claimed to be king in the spiritual sense of the spiritual kingdom. Songs:Pilate unwittingly pitted against each other two prisoners who represented the antagonistic forces of all time. It is an elliptical structure in the question, "whom do you wish that I release?" (\tina thelete apolus“;\), either two questions in one (asyndeton) or the ellipse of \hina\ before \apolus“\. See the same idiom in verse 21|. But Pilate's question tested the Jews as well as himself. It tests all men today. Some manuscripts add the name Jesus to Barabbas and that makes it all the sharper. Jesus Barabbas or Jesus Christ?

rwp@Matthew:27:42 @{He saved others; himself he cannot save} (\allous es“sen; heauton ou dunatai s“sai\). The sarcasm is true, though they do not know its full significance. If he had saved himself now, he could not have saved any one. The paradox is precisely the philosophy of life proclaimed by Jesus himself (Matthew:10:39|). {Let him now come down} (\katabat“ nun\). Now that he is a condemned criminal nailed to the Cross with the claim of being "the King of Israel" (the Jews) over his head. Their spiteful assertion that they would then believe upon Jesus (\ep' auton\) is plainly untrue. They would have shifted their ground and invented some other excuse. When Jesus wrought his greatest miracles, they wanted "a sign from heaven." These "pious scoffers" (Bruce) are like many today who make factitious and arbitrary demands of Christ whose character and power and deity are plain to all whose eyes are not blinded by the god of this world. Christ will not give new proofs to the blind in heart.

rwp@Philippians:2:11 @{Should confess} (\exomologˆsˆtai\). First aorist middle subjunctive of \exomologeomai\ with \hina\ for purpose. {Lord} (\Kurios\). Peter (Acts:2:36|) claimed that God made Christ "Lord." See also strkjv@1Corinthians:8:6; strkjv@12:3; strkjv@Romans:10:9|. Kennedy laments that the term Lord has become one of the most lifeless in the Christian vocabulary, whereas it really declares the true character and dignity of Jesus Christ and "is the basis and the object of worship."

rwp@Revelation:2:24 @{To you the rest} (\humin tois loipois\). Dative case. Those who hold out against Jezebel, not necessarily a minority (9:20; strkjv@19:21; strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:13|). {As many as} (\hosoi\). Inclusive of all "the rest." {This teaching} (\tˆn didachˆn tautˆn\). That of Jezebel. {Which} (\hoitines\). "Which very ones," generic of the class, explanatory definition as in strkjv@1:7|. {Know not} (\ouk egn“san\). Second aorist (ingressive) active of \gin“sk“\, "did not come to know by experience." {The deep things of Satan} (\ta bathea tou Satanƒ\). The Ophites (worshippers of the serpent) and other later Gnostics (Cainites, Carpocratians, Naassenes) boasted of their knowledge of "the deep things," some claiming this very language about Satan (the serpent) as Paul did of God (1Corinthians:2:10|). It is not clear whether the words here quoted are a boast of the Nicolaitans or a reproach on the other Christians for not knowing the depths of sin. Some even claimed that they could indulge in immorality without sinning (1John:1:10; strkjv@3:10|). Perhaps both ideas are involved. {As they say} (\h“s legousin\). Probably referring to the heretics who ridicule the piety of the other Christians. {None other burden} (\ou--allo baros\). \Baros\ refers to weight (Matthew:20:12|), \phortion\, from \pher“\, to bear, refers to load (Galatians:6:5|), \ogkos\ to bulk (Hebrews:12:1|). Apparently a reference to the decision of the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:28|) where the very word \baros\ is used and mention is made about the two items in verse 20| (fornication and idolatry) without mentioning the others about things strangled, etc. See the Pharisaic narrowness in strkjv@Matthew:23:4|.

rwp@Revelation:13:2 @{Like unto a leopard} (\homoion pardalei\). Associative-instrumental case of \pardalis\, old word for panther, leopard, here only in N.T. The leopard (\leo, pard\) was considered a cross between a panther and a lioness. {As the feet of a bear} (\h“s arkou\). Old word, also spelled \arktos\, here only in N.T. From strkjv@Daniel:7:4|. No word in the Greek for "feet" before "bear." {As the mouth of a lion} (\h“s stoma leontos\). From strkjv@Daniel:7:4|. This beast combines features of the first three beasts in strkjv@Daniel:7:2ff|. The strength and brutality of the Babylonian, Median, and Persian empires appeared in the Roman Empire. The catlike vigilance of the leopard, the slow and crushing power of the bear, and the roar of the lion were all familiar features to the shepherds in Palestine (Swete). {The dragon gave him} (\ed“ken aut“i ho drak“n\). First aorist active indicative of \did“mi\ (to give) and dative case \aut“i\ (the beast). The dragon works through this beast. The beast is simply Satan's agent. Satan claimed this power to Christ (Matthew:4:9; strkjv@Luke:4:6|) and Christ called Satan the prince of this world (John:12:31; strkjv@14:30; strkjv@16:11|). Songs:the war is on.

rwp@Revelation:16:14 @{Spirits of devils} (\pneumata daimoni“n\). "Spirits of demons." Explanation of the simile \h“s batrachoi\. See strkjv@1Timothy:4:1| about "deceiving spirits and teachings of demons." {Working signs} (\poiounta sˆmeia\). "Doing signs" (present active participle of \poie“\). The Egyptian magicians wrought "signs" (tricks), as did Simon Magus and later Apollonius of Tyana. Houdini claimed that he could reproduce every trick of the spiritualistic mediums. {Which go forth} (\ha ekporeuetai\). Singular verb with neuter plural (collective) subject. {Unto the kings} (\epi tous basileis\). The three evil spirits (dragon and the two beasts) spur on the kings of the whole world to a real world war. "There have been times when nations have been seized by a passion for war which the historian can but imperfectly explain" (Swete). {To gather them together} (\sunagagein\). Second aorist active infinitive of \sunag“\, to express purpose (that of the unclean spirits). {Unto the war of the great day of God, the Almighty} (\eis ton polemon tˆs hˆmeras tˆs megalˆs tou theou tou pantokratoros\). Some take this to be war between nations, like strkjv@Mark:13:8|, but it is more likely war against God (Psalms:2:2|) and probably the battle pictured in strkjv@17:14; strkjv@19:19|. Cf. strkjv@2Peter:3:12|, "the day of God," his reckoning with the nations. See strkjv@Joel:2:11; strkjv@3:4|. Paul uses "that day" for the day of the Lord Jesus (the Parousia) as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:2; strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:10; strkjv@2:2; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:8; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:14; strkjv@Phillipians:1:6; strkjv@2:16; strkjv@2Timothy:1:12,18; strkjv@4:8|.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ THE APOCALYPTIC STYLE The book claims to be an apocalypse (Revelation:1:1|) and has to be treated as such. It is an unveiling (\apokalupsis\, from \apokalupt“\) or revelation of Jesus Christ, a prophecy, in other words, of a special type, like Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Daniel in the Old Testament. There was a considerable Jewish apocalyptic literature by this time when John wrote, much of it B.C., some of it A.D., like the Book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Baruch, the Book of Jubilees, the Assumption of Moses, the Psalms of Solomon, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Sibylline Oracles, some of them evidently "worked over by Christian hands" (Swete). Jesus himself used the apocalyptic style at times (Mark:13; strkjv@Matthew:24,25; strkjv@Luke:21|). Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:14| spoke of the unpremeditated apocalyptic utterances in the Christian meetings and suggested restraints concerning them. "The Revelation of John is the only written apocalypse, as it is the only written prophecy of the Apostolic age.... The first Christian apocalypse came on the crest of this long wave of apocalyptic effort" (Swete). The reason for this style of writing is usually severe persecution and the desire to deliver a message in symbolic form. The effort of Antiochus Epiphanes, who claimed to be "a god manifest," to hellenize the Jews aroused violent opposition and occasioned many apocalypses to cheer the persecuted Jews.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ EMPEROR WORSHIP AS THE OCCASION FOR JOHN'S APOCALYPSE There is no doubt at all that the emperor cult (emperor worship) played a main part in the persecution of the Christians that was the occasion for this great Christian apocalypse. The book itself bears ample witness to this fact, if the two beasts refer to the Roman power as the agent of Satan. It is not possible to single out each individual emperor in the graphic picture. Most would take the dragon to be Satan and the first and the second beasts to be the imperial and provincial Roman power. The Roman emperors posed as gods and did the work of Satan. In particular there were two persecuting emperors (Nero and Domitian) who were responsible for many martyrs for Christ. But emperor worship began before Nero. Julius Caesar was worshipped in the provinces. Octavius was called Augustus (\Sebastos\, Reverend). The crazy Emperor Caius Caligula not simply claimed to be divine, but actually demanded that his statue be set up for worship in the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem. He was killed in January A.D. 41 before he could execute his dire purpose. But the madcap Nero likewise demanded worship and blamed in A.D. 64 the burning of Rome on the Christians, though guilty of it himself. He set the style for persecuting Christians, which slumbered on and burst into flames again under Domitian, who had himself commonly termed _Dominus ac Deus noster_ (Our Lord and God). The worship of the emperor did not disturb the worshippers of other gods save the Jews and the Christians, and in particular the Christians were persecuted after the burning of Rome when they were distinguished from the Jews. Up till then Christians were regarded (as by Gallio in Corinth) as a variety of Jews and so entitled to tolerance as a _religio licita_, but they had no standing in law by themselves and their refusal to worship the emperor early gave offence, as Paul indicates in strkjv@1Corinthians:12:3|. It was \Kurios Iˆsous\ or \Kurios Kaisar\. On this very issue Polycarp lost his life. The emperors as a rule were tolerant about it, save Nero and Domitian, who was called Nero _redivivus_, or Nero back again. Trajan in his famous letter to Pliny advised tolerance except in stubborn cases, when the Christians had to be put to death. After Nero it was a crime to be a Christian and all sorts of slanders about them were circulated. We have seen already in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:3ff.|, the man of sin who sets himself above God as the object of worship. We have seen also in strkjv@1John:2:18,22; strkjv@4:3; strkjv@2John:1:7| the term antichrist applied apparently to Gnostic heretics. One may wonder if, as Beckwith argues, in the Apocalypse the man of sin and the antichrist are united in the beast.

rwp@Romans:1:8 @{First} (\pr“ton men\). Adverb in the accusative case, but no \epeita de\ (in the next place) as in strkjv@Hebrews:7:2| or \epeita\ as in strkjv@James:3:17| follows. The rush of thoughts crowds out the balanced phraseology as in strkjv@Romans:3:2; strkjv@1Corinthians:11:18|. {Through} (\dia\). As the mediator or medium of thanksgiving as in strkjv@7:25|. {For} (\peri\). Concerning, about. {That} (\hoti\). Or because. Either declarative or causal \hoti\ makes sense here. {Your faith} (\hˆ pistis hum“n\). "Your Christianity" (Sanday and Headlam). {Is proclaimed} (\kataggelletai\). Present passive indicative of \kataggell“\, to announce (\aggell“\) up and down (\kata\). See also \anaggell“\, to bring back news (John:5:15|), \apaggell“\, to announce from one as the source (Matthew:2:8|), \prokataggell“\, to announce far and wide beforehand (Acts:3:18|). {Throughout all the world} (\en hol“i t“i kosm“i\). Natural hyperbole as in strkjv@Colossians:1:6; strkjv@Acts:17:6|. But widely known because the church was in the central city of the empire.

Bible:
Filter: String:

[pBiblx2]
Sat Jun 29 22:36:11 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020